1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.594 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Ayanrasapatti Panchayat, Through its President, P.Solaichamy, S/o.Palaniyandi, Nenmani Post, Tuticorin District. : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, Pudur, Panchayat Union, Tuticorin District. 3.Muthu Mariappan : Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27.04.2011 made in W.P.(MD). No.8392 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.OO.Ni.2/490/2007 dated 24.05.2010 and the 2nd respondents proceedings No.T1/3150/2007 dated 22.02.2010 and to quash the same in accordance with law. For Appellant : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan For Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2011 passed in W.P.(MD).No.8392 of 2010. 2. The facts leading to this case are that a disciplinary action was initiated as against the third respondent herein and a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on him. Challenging the same, the third respondent had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority had set aside the order of dismissal from service. As against the said order, the appellant herein had filed a revision and the Revisional Authority had also confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. The said orders were challenged by the appellant by filing W.P.(MD).No.8392 of 2010. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 27.04.2011, had dismissed the said Writ Petition. As against the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the Appellate Authority had set aside the order of dismissal from service on the ground that the third respondent was not provided with copies of documents sought for by him and in that event, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, at the most, setting aside the order of dismissal from service, liberty should have been given to the appellant to proceed further as against the third respondent. However, such liberty has not been given to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the learned Single Judge at Paragraph No.3, has clearly stated that if the appellant wants to proceed as against the third respondent, he can do so only in accordance with law. 5. But, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that in clear terms, liberty to proceed as against the third respondent is not spelled out in the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 7. It is an admitted fact that the order of dismissal was set aside only on technical ground, as mentioned above. Under such circumstances, the appellant should be given liberty to proceed further as against the third respondent in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to proceed as against the third respondent herein in accordance with law, after furnishing copies of documents sought for by him and after reinstating the third respondent in service. It is needless to say that those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 copies of documents sought for by the third respondent should be in connection with the issue raised as against him and he shall also co-operate in the enquiry. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the third respondent to co- operate with the enquiry, the appellant is at liberty to proceed as against the third respondent in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the allegation levelled as against the third respondent is misappropriation of funds, and therefore, the appellant is directed to complete the proceedings and pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar( /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, Pudur, Panchayat Union, Tuticorin District. +One cc to Mr.F.Deepak, Advocate, SR.No.21221 +One cC to The Spl Govt Pleader, SR.No.21327 NB rl/5c – 18.7.2011 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.594 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/