Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 14 To March 20, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107NOMINAL INDEXD.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 1071. Public Servants Should Not Use Mobile Phones During Office Hours For Personal Use: Madras High Court Orders Govt To Frame RegulationsCase Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them."...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.2. 'No Absolute Proposition By SC That Suspension Of Employee Can't Continue Beyond 3 Months Without Filing Chargesheet': Madras High Court (FB)Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, KancheepuramCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.3. Visible Collusion With Investigating Officer': Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of Government Pleader Accused Of Giving Death ThreatsCase Title: M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101Concluding that there has been visible collusion between the investigating officer and an advocate who was accused in a criminal case, Madras High Court has set aside the appointment of the latter as a Government Pleader for a District Munsif Court in Periyakulam.Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that constitutional courts have time and again repeated that public posts are to be filled up only with women and men of integrity and honesty. Therefore, the single judge bench expressed its strong disapproval about the conduct of the investigating officer and the respondent government pleader."To cover up the misdeeds, the Police has conducted a corrupt investigation and deleted the name of the sixth respondent from the charge sheet without assigning any reason", the court noted.4. 'Not A Flight Risk, No Concrete Evidence For Coercive Action': Madras High Court Quashes Look Out Circular Against Rahul SuranaCase Title: Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102Madras High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Rahul Surana, son of the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited.Dr Justice Anita Sumanth opined that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on whose approval the Bureau of Immigration issued a...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 14 To March 20, 2022

Sebin James

Tags