Disposed

G. Arumaidurai v. the District Manager

Madras HC3 Mar 2014WP(MD)/2218/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging suspension orders were allowed. The Court directed the respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings within three months, pay subsistence allowance pending orders, and reinstate petitioners if no action is taken by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings within three months; pay subsistence allowance; reinstate petitioners if no final order passed.

G. Arumaidurai Vs the District Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.03.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

W.P.(MD) Nos.2218, 2430 and 2431 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1,1,2 and 2 of 2014 G.Arumaidurai ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2218 of 2014 V.Thirumoorthy ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2430 of 2014 Shanmugam ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2431 of 2014 Vs. The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondent W.P(MD)No.2218 of 2014 The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. ... Respondent W.P(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2014

¶5

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2218 of 2014 : Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the impugned order of suspension passed by him in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.881/2013/RV-2 dated 19.9.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2014 : Petitions filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the impugned order of suspension passed by him in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.882/2013/RV-2 dated 19.9.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

For Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2218 of 2014 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2230 of 2014 : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja For Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2231 of 2014 : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan For Respondent in all Petitions : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel for TASMAC

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

COMMON ORDER

¶11

In all these writ petitions, challenge is made by the respective petitioner is against the order of suspension dated 19.09.2013.

¶12

These petitioners were working in TASMAC shops and were placed

¶13

under suspension on certain allegation that they have sold liquor at higher rate by mixing water. After notice, these matters are listed before this Court today for further hearing.

¶14

Mr.M.Muniasamy, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent in all these matters, on instructions, submitted that the respondent will complete the disciplinary proceedings within a time fixed by this Court.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions submit that the order of suspension is in force for the past five months and the petitioners are not being paid even subsistence allowance for these days. They have also brought to the knowledge of this Court an order passed in similar matter in W.P(MD)No.19881 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013.

¶16

I heard the learned counsel appearing for either parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioners are under suspension for more than 5-1/2 months. It is also an admitted fact that they have not been paid subsistence allowance so far. Under similar circumstances, this Court has considered and passed an order in W.P(MD)No.19881 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013, wherein the operative portion reads as follows:-

¶18

“5. A period of more than six months have lapsed now,

¶19

from the date of order of suspension. Not even a charge memo has been issued so far. Even at the stage of contemplation of an enquiry, a suspension cannot be prolonged. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner is that no subsistence allowance is also paid. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

(i) If the respondent choose to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, he shall do so and complete it and pass final orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶21

(ii) Till then, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance; and

¶22

(iii) If the respondent do not initiate any proceedings and do not pass any final orders, within the time stipulated above, the petitioner will be entitled to be reinstated into service, after the period indicated above.”

¶23

Considering the fact that these writ petitions are also on similar set of facts, the very same order is passed in these Writ Petitions also. Accordingly, the respondent in each petitions is at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ liberty to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, complete the same and pass final orders within a period of three months

¶24

¶25

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are entitled to get their subsistence allowance from the date of their suspension till such final order is passed by the respondent. If no disciplinary proceedings are initiated within the time stipulated as stated supra, the petitioners are entitled to get reinstatement of their service after the period as indicated above.

¶26

With these directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar \True copy\

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶30

2.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶31

+1CC TO MR.G.THALAIMUTHARASU, ADVOCATE SR.NO.13651 +1CC TO MR.P.T.RAMESH RAJA, ADVOCATE SR.NO.13804

¶32

W.P.(MD) Nos.2218, 2430 and 2431 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1,1,2 and 2 of 2014 03.03.2014

¶33

SKN

¶34

NA/07/03/2014/P3/5C

¶35

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

G. Arumaidurai v. the District Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Arumaidurai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.B.Prakashchand Jain Vs the Inspector General of

T.Rajasekar Vs the Commissioner

N.Subramaniam, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

T. Sankar Vs the Senior Regional Manager

M. Sheik Mansoor, Vs the District Collector /

Annakili Vs the District Collector