Madras High Court
REV.APLW/235/2026 of N.DHAKSHINAMURTHY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 9 September 2026
REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026
N.Dhakshinamurthy
Ex-OS/ SSE/P.Way/ O/ AB, No.14-ATG Nagar, Barathi Nagar Extension, Opp. to Katpadi Scan Center, Katpadi, Vellore-632 007.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep. By Chief Personnel Officer/ Admn,
Revision Authority, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager II, Appellate Authority, DRM’s Office, Confidential Section, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Disciplinary Authority, DRM Office, Chennai Division, Confidential Section, Chennai-600 003.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 16.06.2026 in the above WP.No. 34446 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Pichai Pillai
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lower authority has issued the order of removal without having any jurisdiction.
REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026
2. The said ground has been considered by this Court, in the context of the counter statement filed by the respondents. The point of jurisdiction has been considered by this Court and a clear finding has been made in paragraph No.7, which reads as under: ………….. the penalties specified in clause [i] to [vi] of rule [6] can be imposed by the authorities specified therein, under Note [1], it has been specifically stated that the Appointing Authority or an authority of equivalent rank or any higher authority shall be competent to impose the penalties in clause [vii], [viii] and [ix] of Rule [6]. Therefore, in the case of the Petitioner, an authority equivalent in rank to the Appointing Authority has acted as a Disciplinary Authority and imposed penalties as per Law.
3. In view of the fact that this Court has considered the point of jurisdiction in the order sought to be reviewed, the said point cannot be re- adjudicated in the review petition. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI
REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026
To
1. Union of India Rep. By Chief Personnel Officer/ Admn, Revision Authority, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager II, Appellate Authority, DRM’s Office, Confidential Section, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Disciplinary Authority, DRM Office, Chennai Division, Confidential Section, Chennai-600 003.
REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. SLI REV.APLW No. 235 of 2026 09-09-2026