1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :: 15.03.2011 CORAM :: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.2963 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 V. Sivanandi, S/o. Velandi, Chennagarampatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ...... Petitioner - Vs - The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. .......Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.A/5916/06-1 dated 18.09.2008 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to disburse the salary, full allowance with retirement benefits from 06.07.1992 to till the retirement. For Petitioner :: Mr. K. Baalasundharam For Respondent :: Mr. V. Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader - - - - - - - O R D E R Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order of termination dated 18.09.2008. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has got remedy of filing an Appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District. Without filing the Appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the respondent dated 18.09.2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the order of termination was made solely on the basis of the order of conviction made by the Criminal Court and now, a Division Bench of this Court, in Criminal Appeal (MD)No.370 of 2008 has set aside the order of conviction. There is change of circumstances and hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of termination made by the respondent. 5. That apart, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that already the petitioner sent a representation dated 26.07.2010 to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District and the same could be directed to be considered by him. 6. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District to treat the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2010 as an Appeal against the order of termination made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, the respondent herein, and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.370 of 2008 dated 07.07.2010 acquitting the petitioner of all the charges made against him. The said exercise shall be carried out by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above said direction, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. SD/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Copy to: The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. +1 CC TO MR. K. BALASUNDHARAM, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 6594 +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 6709 W.P.(MD)No.2963 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 15.03.2011 Dpn/- PAM 30.03.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/