High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 11 MAD CK 0347

R. Arputharani vs The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services

Madras High Court · Decided on 14 November 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M. Sundresh, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 29712 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 343 words

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The petitioner is working as a staff nurse. Earlier, a proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by the office of the Superintendent, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Mannargudi, asking the petitioner to give her explanation. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2014, the respondent transferred the petitioner. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier proceedings was not pursued and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed without any basis, that too, during the academic year and therefore, the same is required to be interfered with.

3.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it has been passed on administrative reasons. Merely because, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order dated 29.10.2014, it cannot be said that it has not been passed on administrative reasons. It is not as if the respondent who passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to pass the same. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner''s post is a transferable post. Earlier, the proceedings was passed in the year 2013. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any connection with the impugned order with the earlier proceedings, even otherwise, the impugned order shows that it was passed on administrative reason. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate that it has been passed on extraneous consideration.

4.

This Court finds no materials to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent seeking to review the order of suspension. The petitioner is given two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to make such request to the respondent. As and when the same is received, the respondent is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.