M. Mahalingam v. Union of India

Anshika DhawanCase SummaryLeave a Comment

M.Mahalingam v. Union of India

M. Mahalingam v. Union of India
Madras High Court
W.P. No. 18649 of 2014
Before Justice P. N. Prakash
Decided on April 21, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Whether a High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing a government authority to suspend an employee against whom an FIR for committing cyber crime has been registered?

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 66,66D)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B,419)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The writ petition was filed so that 5th respondent initiates action based on the representations submitted by the petitioner to him.
  • R. Raman, Assistant in the office of Joint Director of Agriculture along with others had created a fake Email ID in the name of the petitioner and sent anonymous letters to various authorities in the Department.
  • Petitioner lodged a complaint against Raman and others for offences under Section 120B and 419 of IPC and Section 43, 66, 66D of IT Act, 2000.
  • The police have presented their case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, however, the petitioner has alleged that Raman is continuously causing trouble to the witnesses and hence, they did not give proper evidence before the court.
  • Through this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to 5th respondent i.e. the concerned authorities to suspend Raman and his associates.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The counsel for petitioner highlighted certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules which prescribe for suspension on certain grounds.
  • He further highlighted that since the final report has been filed, the authority has sufficient power to suspend Raman.
  • The authorities submitted details about the proceedings and transfers of Raman and his associates.

Final Decision

  • The court said that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus since the final report has been filed.
  • The petitioner was given liberty to make a detailed representation to the concerned authorities in order to take appropriate legal actions.
  • The trial court may cancel Raman’s bail if it is proved that he has tampered with witnesses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *