Dismissed

S.P.Venkatesan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC11 Feb 2015WP/3497/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the third respondent to conclude disciplinary proceedings expeditiously within four months. The Court also ordered payment of subsistence allowance to the suspended petitioner during the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to conclude disciplinary proceedings within four months and pay subsistence allowance during the proceedings. No costs.

S.P.Venkatesan Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.3497 of 2015 and MP.No. 01 of 2015

¶6

S.P.Venkatesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Managing Director
TASMAC Limited
4 th Floor, CMDA Tower,
Egmore, Chennai
2. The Senior Regional Officer
TASMAC Ltd., Trichy Regional, Trichy
3. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited
Villupuram District ...Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.No.R.No.09/01/(443)2014 dated 24.01.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on duty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. H.Rajesh For respondents : Mr.S.Muthuraj

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the third respondent dated 24.1.2015 placing him under suspension, pending initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶11

The third respondent suspended the petitioner from service on account of shortage of amount in sale account. According to the petitioner, he was not available during the time of inspection. In short, the petitioner pleads that he has not committed the misconduct.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned standing counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that charge memo would be issued shortly and proceedings will be completed within a period of four months. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be paid Subsistence Allowance during the currency of Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶14

The third respondent is directed to conclude the Disciplinary Proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

It is needless to point out that Subsistence Allowance should be paid to the petitioner in accordance with Regulations during the currency of Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
ga
To
1. The Managing Director
TASMAC Limited
4 th Floor, CMDA Tower,
Egmore, Chennai
2. The Senior Regional Officer
TASMAC Ltd., Trichy Regional, Trichy
3. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited
Villupuram District
W.P.No.3497 of 2015
KK(CO)
CA(02/03/2015)

¶17

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

S.P.Venkatesan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Venkatesan v. The Managing Director

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

G.Mohan Vs The District Collector

D.Janarthanan Vs the Managing Director

M.Govindasamy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

T.Revathi Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Dhanasekaran, Vs the Principal Secretary to

V. Sambandam Vs the Principal Chief