LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-302

S GOVINDARAJU Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

Decided On April 03, 2017
S GOVINDARAJU Appellant
V/S
Deputy Secretary To Government, Co-Operation, Food And Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order made in Letter No.11031/CN2/2016, dated 01.08.2016 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pass orders on merits in the revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 20.06.2016.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent has passed an order in Na.Ka.No.1022/2005 nu dated 03.05.2013, by which punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, by reducing the basic pay to Rs.5,650/- from Rs.10,175/-. Hence, the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent against the punishment imposed by the third respondent. The second respondent has passed orders on 13.10.2015 confirming the punishment order passed by the third respondent. The aforesaid order was served on the petitioner on 17.12.2015. As against the said order, the petitioner also filed revision under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the third respondent on 17.02.2016 and the same was served on the petitioner on 12.04.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent on 20.06.2016. The first respondent has rejected the petitioner's revision petition on the ground of delay. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has filed the revision petition under Section 153 of the said Act before the third respondent on 17.02.2016 who is not a competent authority to decide the same. Therefore, the petitioner approached the wrong forum against the order passed by the second respondent.