A petitioner challenged his verbal termination as a driver with 17 years of service. The court held that factual disputes regarding the termination grounds and valid cessation of service require examination by a competent forum, precluding writ court interference in this case.
Writ of Mandamus is dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.07.2015 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.11965 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
D.Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The Joint Director / Project Officer, Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelyhood Mission, New Natham Road, Reserve Line, Madurai – 14. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent from in any way preventing the petitioner from continuing his duty as Driver in the 2nd respondent office and consequently, direct the respondents to pay all the monetary benefits including the salary to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam, AGP
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ petition, seeking an order to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent from in any way preventing the petitioner to continueing his duty as Driver in the 2nd respondent office and consequently, direct the respondents to pay all the monetary benefits including the salary to the petitioner.
2.Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the Writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on 04.02.1999 in the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Ltd., Madurai, on daily wage basis and that the petitioner has rendered 17 years of service as a Driver without any remarks. On 02.07.2015, the petitioner availed 3 days leave for getting community, income and nativity certificates for the purpose of getting admission to her daughter in the school. He informed the same to A2 Assistant in the respondent Department and the leave of the petitioner has been recorded as casual leave in the attendance register. When he reported for duty https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after 3 days leave, he came to know that the 2nd respondent has appointed a new Driver in his place and that the 2nd respondent has informed the petitioner that his service has been terminated and hence, there is no
2
need for him to report for work. According to the petitioner, the act of the 2nd respondent is vindictive and it is a oral termination, without considering the 17 years of service. The petitioner submitted that he has been driven from pillar to post for reinstatement. But, his attempt fails. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ petition for the above said relief.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been terminated verbally. The petitioner has also made a representation, narrating the entire events for getting reinstatement. Whether the petitioner has been prevented from joining duty after availing 3 days casual leave or for any other reason? are all the matter to be decided by the appropriate forum. Certainly the Writ Court cannot look into the disputed question of fact with the records available. Since there is termination, the petitioner will have to agitate his claim before the appropriate forum and if he succeeds, he would be given all the benefits. This Court also makes it very clear that if the petitioner's service has been discontinued on the ground of 3 days casual leave availed, for getting community certificate, etc., and that the petitioner rendered unblemished 17 years of services, the appropriate forum will have to look into these aspects also.
6.Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The Joint Director / Project Officer, Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelyhood Mission, New Natham Road, Reserve Line,Madurai – 14.
1CC to Mr. N. Sathish Babu, Advocate, SR.No.38359
1CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.38851
W.P.(MD)No.11965 of 2015
14.07.2015
2P/5C AM/11.08.2015.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can interfere with a disputed factual question regarding the oral termination of an employee rendering 17 years of service.
Whether a writ court can examine the validity of termination based on availed casual leave without a detailed inquiry.
Whether the writ petition for reinstatement and salary should be dismissed when there is a need for determination by a competent forum.
D. Kumar
District Collector, Madurai District
Joint Director / Project Officer, Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelyhood Mission
S. Vaideswaran
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
