1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.385 of 2011 V.Savaridass : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul. : Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.01.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.14934 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.14934 of 2010 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2010: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.E2/49750/2010, District Order No.1122/2010, dated 09.12.2010 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner the rank of Company Commander in Tamil Nadu Homeguards and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. For Appellant : Mrs.U.Nirmala Rani For Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 19.01.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.14934 of 2010. 2. The said Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2010, whereby the appellant herein was dismissed from service. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed without providing an opportunity, the said Writ Petition was filed. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the appellant to approach the Appellate Authority to exhaust the alternative remedy. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no enquiry was conducted. However, the said stand has been shifted by saying that no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant before passing the order of dismissal from service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the Writ Petition, we find that an enquiry was conducted on 25.11.2010 and according to the appellant also, an enquiry was conducted on 25.11.2010. The order of dismissal from service is basing on certain commission and omission, and therefore, the same has to be examined by the Appellate Authority. Since the order of dismissal from service was passed after conducting an enquiry, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 5. In view of the above, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as against the order of dismissal from service. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To The Superintendent of Police,Dindigul. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.8345 +1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.8283 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.385 of 2011 25.03.2011 NB PA/09.06.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/