Cop moves court in phone case

[1]

Madurai: A woman constable in the rank of havildar has appealed to the Madurai bench of the Madras HC to stay disciplinary proceedings against her for using mobile phone during duty hours.Constable M. Asia said she spoke to her husband only after duty hours.
Asia, belonging to the Tamil Nadu special police, had used the mobile allegedly when she was on duty at Kudankulam in September last year when the situation was tense there. A woman officer noticed her speaking on the mobile.
She has been charged with showing disrespect to higher officials and using foul language. The assistant commandant of the force, who conducted the preliminary inquiry, found her guilty and recommended appropriate action against her on November 11, 2012.
She was given charge memo, and directed to appear before the assistant commandant. Asia had earlier approached the court after officials rejected her plea to record the inquiry proceedings in a video camera and engage a lawyer on her behalf.
A single judge dismissed her petition. Hence she filed the present plea, seeking interim injunction restraining the officers from conducting an inquiry against her.
Contempt proceedings against Adi Dravidar dept director
Chennai: The Madras HC initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the director of the Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare department for deliberately disobeying its order.
Justice D. Haripa­ranthaman directed the registry to prepare a suo motu contempt petition, number it and issue notice, returnable by September 2, to the director of the Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare department, Chennai. He also posted the writ petition filed by B. Selvam of Salem along with the petition on September 2.
The judge said Selvam, employed as headmaster in a  school run by the department, was to retire on October 31, 2009 on reaching superannuation.
How­ever, he was issued a charge memo on October 20, 2009 under rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. He was issued another order dated October 30, 2009, not permitting him to retire from service. He was placed under suspension on October 28, 2009.
While so, on a petition from Selvam to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge memo within a time-frame, this court had, on July 14, 2010, directed the district Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare (DADTW) officer, Salem, to pass final orders within three months.
In spite of the passing of three years, no final order was passed. Hence, Selvam filed this petition to quash the charge memo. 
On July 10, 2013, the special government pleader infor­m­ed the court that the DADTW officer was not the competent authority to pass final orders and the head of the department may be directed to pass final orders.
In the circumstances, the director of the Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare department was directed to pass the final orders within two weeks and produce them before the court, with the matter posted to July 24.
Even on July 24, no order was passed. “Hence, I am of the view that the director of the Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare department has prima facie deliberately disobeyed the order of this court.
Therefore, this court is inclined to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the director of the Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare department,” the judge added.
G.O. increasing omnibus tax upheld in high court
The Madras high court has upheld the 2001 government order hiking motor vehicles tax for omnibuses with a seating capacity of more than 35 persons. On a batch of writ petitions challenging the hike in the tax, a division bench comprising justices R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam passed the order.
The petitioners, Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association and others, contended that contract carriages were discriminated by the levy of five or six times the tax of stage carriages.
The vehicles operated on state roads were minimal and in some cases the vehicles donot ply on state roads at all. Increase of tax to Rs 3,000 from Rs 2,000 per seat, per quarter with effect from December 1, 2001, violated Article 14 of Constitution and the principles of proportionality.
They have prayed for quashing the government order dated November 30, 2001, which enhanced the tax.
The authorities justified the increase as expenditure incurred by the highways department for laying roads and bridges and maintaining them were up.
The bench said of the total expenditure incurred by the highways department, the deficit was constantly increasing and there was a need for the government to manage the expenditure.
The bench held that it did not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act levying tax on the basis of floor area for contract carriages which carried not more than 35 persons.
To prevent evasion of tax by omnibuses by providing lesser number of seats, the government took a decision to amend the law on the basis of the floor area, the bench added.