At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
For the Petitioner: J. Senthil Kumaraiah, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, D. Ramya, Advocate, R1, K.P. Krishnadoss, Special Government Pleader.
(Prayer: Review Application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 10.09.2018 made in W.P.(MD) No.19532/2018.)1. This review application is filed to review the order dated 10.09.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.19532/2018.2. The Management is the review petitioner.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the writ petitioner has challenged one punishment and not the entire punishment, which has been reflected in the order. He would further submit that since there are past conducts, the writ petitioner will not be granted any relief. He would further contend that since the Court has heard in not looking at the other punishment, which was in force ought not to have interfered with the punishment and hence, he submitted that the review petition has got to be allowed and the writ petition has got to be dismissed.4. This Court is not inclined to go into the various aspects in the review petition in the light of the judgment in S.Srinivasan v. State of Tamilnadu [CDJ 2019 MHC 1584].5. The review petition is not maintainable and there is no error apparent on the face of record. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the review petition could be maintained, this Court has made it very clear in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order dated 10.09.2018 that unless and until the punishment imposed for the misconduct is proved, it cannot be treated as a punishment and could be taken as a past record. Hence
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
, on merit also, the Management has no locus to maintain the review petition.6. For all these reasons, the review petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.