Disposed

T. Sankar v. the Senior Regional Manager

Madras HC3 Mar 2014WP(MD)/3257/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court sought to dispose of five writ petitions challenging suspension orders against TASMAC employees. The Court directed respondents to proceed with disciplinary proceedings within three months, grant subsistence allowance during this period, and reinstate the petitioners if no final order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings within three months; order quashed pending said proceedings; subsistence allowance granted; reinstatement ordered if proceedings not complet

T. Sankar Vs the Senior Regional Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶5

W.P.(MD) Nos.3257, 3258, 3259, 3260 & 3265 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2014 W.P.(MD) No.3257 of 2014

¶6

T. SANKAR ... Petitioner in WP(MD). 3257/ 2014 K.LALKUMAR ... Petitioner in WP(MD). 3258/ 2014 G. RAVI, .. Petitioner in WP(MD). 3259/ 2014 J.SAM GLASTON ROSE, ... Petitioner in WP(MD). 3260/ 2014 S. SATHIYA RAJ ... Petitioner in WP(MD). 3265/ 2014 - Vs. -

¶7

1 THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION, (TASMAC) LTD., ANNANAGAR MADURAI- 20.

¶8

2 THE DISTRICT MANAGER, AMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION, (TASMAC) LTD., KANYAKUMARI DT. ...RESPONDENT IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶9

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, passed by the second respondent in letter No.724/A/2014, dated 22.02.2014 and quash the same as illegal respectively.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel for TASMAC

¶11

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶12

Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC, takes notice for the respondents in all the writ petitions. With the consent of both the learned counsels, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are identical and the prayer sought for are also similar, all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common Order.

¶13

¶14

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the order of suspension No.724/A/2014, dated 22.02.2014, passed by the second respondent. The petitioners were working in TASMAC Shop and based on certain allegations, they were placed under suspension. Though all these writ petitions are filed questioning the order of suspension on merits by contending that the allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned order are not factually correct, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the matter for the simple reason that the impugned order under challenge is only a suspension order and certainly the petitioners are entitled to raise their objections, if the respondents choose to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo etc. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot make any observation or express any view on the merits and contentions raised in these writ petitions.

¶15

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are given liberty to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings and complete the same and pass final orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till the final order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as stated supra, the petitioners are entitled to get their subsistence allowance from the respondents. If the respondents do not choose to continue the disciplinary proceedings or do not complete the same within the time stipulated, as stated supra, the petitioners are entitled for reinstatement immediately thereafter.

¶16

With the above directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To:

¶22

1.The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Anna Nagar, Madurai-20

¶23

2.The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Kanyakumari District

¶24

+5cc to Mr. M/S.Jeyakarthick,Advocate in SR.No. 13982 to 13986

¶25

TS/14.03.2014/2P-8C

¶26

W.P.(MD) Nos.3257, 3258, 3259, 3260 & 3265 of 2014 03.03.2014

¶27

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

T. Sankar v. the Senior Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sankar v. the Senior Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

G. Arumaidurai Vs the District Manager

M. Sheik Mansoor, Vs the District Collector /

Annakili Vs the District Collector