Disposed

S.Palanisamy, v. the District Manager

Madras HC16 Sept 2014WP/16256/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging suspension and a fine. The Court explained that the fine was not consequential but accepted the petitioner's willingness to pay it. Drawing a parallel with a prior precedent, the Court revoked the suspension, directed reinstatement without salary claim for the suspension period, and ordered completion of the pending enquiry within four months.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of suspension order, direction to reinstate the petitioner without claiming salary for the suspension period, and direction to complete the enquiry within four months.

S.Palanisamy, Vs the District Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.16256 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶8

S.Palanisamy .. Petitioner

¶9

..vs.. 1.The District Manager TASMAC Ltd Erode District Erode 2.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC Ltd. Coimbatore Region Coimbatore .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the suspension order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.916/2010/R5 dated 21.05.2010 and consequential order of fine imposed against the petitioner by him in Na.Ka.No.916/2010/R5 dated 15.06.2010, which are served only on 12.05.2014 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as salesman with continuity of service with all other attendant benefits.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For respondents : Mr.S.Muthuraj

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner was appointed as Salesman by the respondents and by proceedings dated 21.05.2010, the petitioner was suspended. Pending enquiry, by another proceedings dated 15.06.2010 a fine of Rs.15,000/- was imposed on the petitioner and the petitioner challenges the suspension order as well as the order dated 15.06.2010, by which fine was imposed.

¶14

Though in the writ petition it is stated that the order dated 15.06.2010 is a consequential one, according to me, the said order dated 15.06.2010 is not a consequential one and the same cannot be challenged as a consequential order, which has been dated 21.05.2010. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.15,000/https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposed as fine by virtue of the order dated 15.06.2010 and since

¶15

the petitioner was under suspension for the past 4½ years, the petitioner may be reinstated and the petitioner is also willing to give up his salary for the past period and the respondents can initiate enquiry giving an opportunity to the petitioner after reinstating him into service.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner is pending and if the petitioner is willing to participate in the enquiry and is giving up his right to wages from the date of his suspension till date of appointment, the respondents are willing to consider the case of the petitioner to appoint him pending enquiry and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondents would take further action.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the similar circumstances, this court in W.P.No.23155/2011, directed the respondents therein to reinstate the worker and thereafter to proceed with the enquiry.

¶18

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of revoking the suspension order and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on condition that the petitioner should not claim any salary from the date of his suspension till date of his reinstatement and the respondents are also permitted to proceed with the enquiry, complete the enquiry and pass orders within a period of four months. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asr To

¶20

1.The District Manager TASMAC Ltd Erode District Erode

¶21

2.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC Ltd. Coimbatore Region Coimbatore.

¶22

1 cc to Mr.S.Muthuraj ,Advocate, SR.No.44883

¶23

1 cc to Mr. M.R.Jothimanian,Advocate, SR.No.44353

¶24

W.P.No.16256 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶25

ggk(co)pmk.08.10.2014

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Palanisamy, v. the District Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Palanisamy, v. the District Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madras Hotel Ashoka (P) Ltd. Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K.Anjapuli, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Arumugam Vs the Chief Manager

A.Mathiyazhagan Vs Elangovan

S.Madhavan Vs M.Vijayakumar I.A.S

T.Leelavathi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu