Dismissed

S. Sam Josephraj v. the Senior Regional Manager

Madras HC5 Mar 2014WP(MD)/3261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two identical writ petitions challenging suspension orders filed by TASMAC employees were disposed of at the admission stage. The Court directed the respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings within three months while allowing subsistence allowance and potential reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings within 3 months; petitioners entitled to subsistence allowance and reinstatement if proceedings not completed.

S. Sam Josephraj Vs the Senior Regional Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.(MD) Nos.3261 & 3414 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 W.P.(MD) No.3261 of 2014

S.Sam Josephraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Senior Regional Manager

¶10

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Anna Nagar, Madurai-20

¶11

2.The District Manager

¶12

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd.,

¶13

Kanyakumari District ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the 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.

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.3414 of 2014

A.John Selvaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶20

2.The District Manager

¶21

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Kanyakumari District ... Respondents

¶22

¶23

For Petitioners in both WPs :Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents in both WPs :Mr.M.Muniyasamy Standing Counsel for TASMAC

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶27

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

¶28

In 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 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶35

To:

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

+2cc to Mr. M.S.Jeyakarthik,Advocate in SR.No. 13987,13988 TS/18.03.2014/2P-5C

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) Nos.3261 & 3414 of 2014

¶41

05.03.2014

S. Sam Josephraj v. the Senior Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sam Josephraj 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

K.S. Kavitha, Vs the Joint Registrar of

G. Arumaidurai Vs the District Manager

T. Sankar Vs the Senior Regional Manager

U.Amirtham, Vs the Joint Director of School

Sivakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Rajendran, Vs the Principal Chief