1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05/04/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.1752 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 C.Dhanasekaran S/o.M.Chellam (Late) 2/481 Vasanthapuram Rajasekaran Illam Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Commissioner Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings 5/1B Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai. 3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.Roc.No.V4/39765/2009 dated .12.2010 quash the same. For petitioner ... Mr.J.Nisha Banu For Respondents ... Mr.N.Elango R1 & R2 Government Advocate For Respondent 3 ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, Special Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the charge memo issued by the first respondent dated Nil, December 2010. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that disciplinary proceeding was taken by the second respondent and hence there cannot be two enquiries. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. On notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein, it has been pointed out that the charge memo issued by the first respondent was cancelled in view of the proceedings issued by the second respondent. Paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent is extracted hereunder: “7.Regarding the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit it is submitted that the charge memo issued by the first respondent is cancelled as per the instruction of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and the second respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per the directions of the Principal Secretary and Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai. Hence, there is no question of two enquiries for one and the same incident.” 5. In view of the above stated position, the apprehension of the petitioner that the first respondent is proceeding with the charge memo cannot be well-founded. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Commissioner Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings 5/1B Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai. 3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to M/s.J.Nisha Banu, Advocate (SR.No.12581) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.12532) W.P.(MD) No.1752 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 05.04.2011 RR NSV/27.4.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/