![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Nov 11, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment |
Tamil Nadu
-
Chennai
K.T. Sangameswaran
CHENNAI: The State Human Rights Commission has refused to grant a plea seeking the dismissal of government servants who were respondents in a case. Commission member S. Sambandham dismissed as not maintainable a complaint filed by the owner of a driving school at K.K.Nagar here. The proprietor complained that since he refused to offer a bribe, the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) and the Motor Vehicle Inspector did not renew the driving school licence for which he had applied (in October 2002). Subsequently, the RTO gave a false complaint and the K.K. Nagar Police had foisted cases against him. He requested the Commission to take action against the officials. In his written arguments, he prayed that the respondents should be dismissed from service. The respondents, the RTO, the P.A., Superintendent and a Junior Assistant in the (then) RTO Chennai West office, denied any bribe was demanded from the complainant. They submitted the application for renewal was made in October 2002. Earlier, the complainant applied for change of address and it was pending. In the solvency certificate, the value of solvency had been altered.
"Caused hindrance"
On inspection of the school, defects were noticed. They were later rectified and the licence was renewed. They said that whenever the owner came to the RTO office, he picked a quarrel and caused hindrance to public. Mr. Sambandham said the Commission's task was to find out whether human rights were violated by the respondents. The complainant had filed a copy of the note file showing that the licence should be renewed. The RTO had submitted the circumstances under which the file was missing and traced. Those things could not be gone into in summary proceedings. The fact that the complainant was once fined for his disorderly behaviour and another case was pending showed it was not only sub-judice but also indicated the presence of judicial verdict. A prayer seeking dismissal of the respondents was outside the purview of the rights body, he said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|