1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12034 of 2011 R.Palaniraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-600 025. 2. The Principal, The Seshayee Institute of Technology, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to proceed the departmental proceedings initiated as against the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner R.Palaniraj, who joined as a Lecturer in the Seshayee Institute of Technology, Ariyamangalam, Tiruchirappalli on 05.07.1995, was subsequently transferred to the Department of Instrumentation. While he was working there, his divorced wife's father preferred a complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.81 of 2006 on the file of All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli for the alleged offence under Section 406 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the complaint given by the petitioner's divorced wife's father, an order of suspension was passed by the second respondent, the Principal, Seshayee Institute of Technology, Trichy, in his proceedings No.801/A4 dated 19.10.2006. However, the said complaint also came to be closed by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy stating that the case in Crime No.81 or 2006 was closed as 'action dropped'. In view of the dropping of all proceedings by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Trichy, dismissing the complaint given by the petitioner's divorced https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 wife's father against the petitioner under Section 406 of I.P.C., the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents along with the prayer to revoke the suspension order and also to pay the subsistence allowance from April 2008 to till date. But the respondents have not considered the petitioner's representation. Hence, the petitioner has also filed a subsequent Writ Petition in W.P.No.1732 of 2009 and the said Writ Petition also came to be disposed of by this Court dated 18.04.2009, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the light of the order, the petitioner was also paid with the subsistence allowance. It has been submitted before this Court that the second respondent has also further stopped the payment of subsistence allowance, under this background, the grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent having issued notice dated 13.01.2011 to appear before him on 20.01.2011, even on the petitioner's appearance from 20.01.2011 for departmental proceedings, the respondents have not concluded the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to proceed departmental proceedings expeditiously and pass appropriate orders. 2. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. Since the petitioner has sought for only limited prayer to direct the second respondent to complete the departmental proceedings expeditiously, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to complete the departmental proceedings expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this Court was constrained to pass this order without notice to the second respondent for the reason that the petitioner was placed under suspension only on the complaint given by the petitioner's divorced wife's father. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli has also filed a report 'action dropped'. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the matter has to be concluded expeditiously in that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate order as the complaint given by the petitioner's ex-father-in-law itself was dropped and further that complaint being a private affair that is nothing to do with discharge of his official duty. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Commissioner, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-600 025. 2. The Principal, The Seshayee Institute of Technology, Trichy. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 41108 akv ssk/21.12.2011 /4c -3p/- W.P.(MD)No.12034 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/