BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:24.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH WA(MD)No.795 of 2011 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 against WP(MD)No.6064/11 N.Kannaiya :Appellant/Writ Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector,Tanjavoor District,Tanjavoor. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Pattukottai,Tanjavoor District. 3.The Revenue Tahsildar,Peraoorani,Tanjoor District.:Respondents/Respondents PRAYER:Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.6064 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD)No.6064 of 2011:Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned suspension order in Na.Ka.No.2027/2007/A1, dated 27.05.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal as direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all attendant benefits. For Appellant : Mrs.S.Srimathy For Respondents: Mr.K.Mahendran,Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.6064 of 2011. 2.What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was an order of suspension. Inasmuch as it is not the case of the appellant that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend him, but the only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a wrong provision of Rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been quoted by the second respondent and since it is settled law that merely because a wrong provision has been quoted, that would not make an order invalid, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition, has issued a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the appellant who is a differently abled person with regard to the revocation of suspension order. 3.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, it is always open to the second respondent to consider the case of the appellant taking note of the fact that he is a differently abled person, as observed by the learned Single Judge and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that if the appellant is entitled to subsistence allowance, the same shall be paid to him in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The District Collector, Tanjavoor District, Tanjavoor. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Tanjavoor District. 3.The Revenue Tahsildar, Peraoorani, Tanjoor District. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.29042. NB JUDGMENT MADE IN WA(MD)No.795 of 2011 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 RP/08.09.2011/1P/5C. 24.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/