Madras HC orders reinstatement of employee of ordnance factory after 15 year battle
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ordered the reinstatement of an employee of the Ordnance Factory with lesser punishment almost 15 years after he was asked to take compulsory retirement on charges of doubtful integrity after finding him keeping in possession a computer floppy containing copies of official communications without any authorisation.
A division bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar passed the orders recently to reinstate K Saravanan, an upper division clerk employed with the Heavy Alloy Penetrative Project, Tiruchy, an arm of the Ordnance Factory Board.
He was asked to go on compulsory retirement on July 26, 2011 by the management for violation of the Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He approached the CAT against the order.
The tribunal found that there was nothing to question the employee's integrity and the punishment was 'shockingly disproportionate and vindictive'. It set aside the order of compulsory retirement with the rider of a lesser punishment.
During arguments in the high court, the management submitted that the Ordnance Factory is linked to national safety and the charges were serious.
The bench reasoned, 'Even assuming that the photocopies were in the personal possession of the employee, no consequential prejudice was caused to the management, since he had not shared such official communications with any third person. In this view of the matter, both the charges can only be held to be minor in nature, which may not warrant the maximum penalty.'
The bench ordered his reinstatement with a minor penalty within three months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
"Same-Sex Couple Can Very Well Form A Family": Madras High Court
Chennai: Though the Supreme Court may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family, the Madras High Court has held and allowed a young woman to join her female partner and said the two women can constitute a family. A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said the expression "family" has to be understood in an expanded sense. Hearing a writ petition seeking to produce before court a 25-year old woman and set her at liberty, the bench said: "To a specific question from us, the detenue (the 25-year old woman) replied that she is a lesbian and in relationship with the writ petitioner." "She made it clear to the court that she wanted to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten. She told us that her natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become "normal". She even apprehended danger to her life. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere described the true nature of her relationship with the detenue. Even in her complaint to the police, the petitioner called herself as the detenue's close friend. We can understand the hesitation on her part," the court said. Further, the court said: "While Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family." The concept of "chosen family" is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA jurisprudence, the court said, adding the petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family. Justice Anand Venkatesh, Judge of Madras HC, in Prasanna J Vs S Sushma approved a "Deed of familial Association" that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI partners. The Supreme Court, in NALSA and Navtej Johar case, declared that sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice and that it is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. It is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, in its judgment dated May 22, 2025 said: "Since we have satisfied ourselves that the detenue wants to join the petitioner and that she is being detained against her will, we allow this Habeas Corpus petition and set her at liberty. We also restrain the detenue's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty." Also, the court directed the police to provide protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Same sex couples can constitute a family: Madras High Court
Though the Supreme Court may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples , they can very well form a family, the Madras High Court has held and allowed a young woman to join her female partner and said the two women can constitute a family. A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said the expression "family" has to be understood in an expanded sense. Hearing a writ petition seeking to produce before court a 25-year old woman and set her at liberty, the bench said: "To a specific question from us, the detenue (the 25-year old woman) replied that she is a lesbian and in relationship with the writ petitioner." She made it clear to the court that she wanted to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. "It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten. She told us that her natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become "normal". She even apprehended danger to her life." In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere described the true nature of her relationship with the detenue." Even in her complaint to the police, the petitioner called herself as the detenue's close friend. We can understand the hesitation on her part." Live Events Further, the court said: "While Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family." The concept of "chosen family" is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence, the court said adding the petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family. Justice Anand Venkatesh, Judge of Madras HC, in Prasanna J Vs S Sushma approved a "Deed of familial Association" that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI+ partners. The Supreme Court, in NALSA and Navtej Johar case, declared that sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice and that it is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. It is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, in its judgment dated May 22, 2025 said: "Since we have satisfied ourselves that the detenue wants to join the petitioner and that she is being detained against her will, we allow this Habeas Corpus petition and set her at liberty. We also restrain the detenue's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty." Also, the court directed the police to provide protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
Scroll.in
8 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Same-sex couples can form families, says Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that while the Supreme Court had not legalised same-sex marriage, queer couples can 'very well form a family'. In a May 22 order, the bench of Justices GR Swaminiathan and V Lakshminarayanan noted that: 'The expression 'family' has to be understood in an expanded sense.' 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,' the High Court said. 'The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.' Delivering its verdict on petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages, a five-judge Constitution bench had ruled in October 2023 that the issue must be decided by Parliament and that there was no fundamental right to marriage. In January, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions against its October 2023 judgement. The observations by the High Court came while it restrained a lesbian woman's family from interfering in her personal life and unlawfully detaining her. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the partner of a 25-year-old detenue, after the couple was separated. The couple was separated when the detenue was allegedly forcibly restrained by her family. The petitioner had moved the High Court after she alleged that the police refused to help the couple. In court, the detenue's mother accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and alleged that her child was now a drug addict. The mother thus claimed that her daughter required counselling and rehabilitation. The court rejected the contention. 'It would be unfair to accuse her [detenue] of any kind of addiction,' the court said. 'She made it clear that she wants to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten.' The court also noted that it was told that the detenue's 'natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become normal'. The bench criticised the police for their 'rank inaction' and 'insensitivity' despite receiving a complaint from the petitioner.
