Disposed

R.Anbarasan, v. the Senior Regional Manager

Madras HC17 Apr 2015WP(MD)/5692/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a long-pending suspension without reinstatement or allowance, the Madras High Court directed respondents to either initiate disciplinary proceedings within three months and pay subsistence allowance, or reinstate the petitioner. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings within three months and pay subsistence allowance, or reinstate the petitioner immediately if proceedings are not initiated.

R.Anbarasan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17/4/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Writ Petition (MD) No.5692 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶5

R.Anbarasan

¶6

... Petitioner Vs

¶7

The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Trichy.

¶8

The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7861/RV-2/2014 dated 12/11/2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the period of suspension as on duty and pay the arrears of salary along with other attendant benefits and monetary benefits.

¶10

For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan For Respondents ... Mr.M.Muniyasamy Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶11

In this writ petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶13

It is seen that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 12.11.2014, based on certain allegations. Now, even after a long period, the petitioner is not either reinstated or given subsistence allowance so far. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order should be set aside.

¶14

In similar circumstances, this Court has considered and passed order in respect of similarly situated persons in W.P(MD) No.19881 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013.

¶15

Considering all the facts and circumstances, the following order is passed:

¶16

a)It is open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and if any such proceedings is initiated, the same shall be completed and final order shall be passed within a period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. b)The petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance from the date of

¶17

¶18

suspension till the respondents passes the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶19

c)If the respondents does not initiate any disciplinary proceedings as stated supra and pass final orders within the time stipulated, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service immediately thereafter.

¶20

d)If the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance, the same shall be paid and the enquiry shall be conducted on day-to-day basis, and even on holidays. If the petitioner prolongs the enquiry, he cannot demand reinstatement, as per paragraph 5(c), mentioned supra.

¶21

With these directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(writs) /True Copy/

¶24

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Trichy.

¶27

The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited Thanjavur.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate SR.No.19699

¶29

sm:08.05.2015:2P/4C mpk

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.5692 of 2015

¶31

17/4/2015

¶32

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

R.Anbarasan, v. the Senior Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anbarasan, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A1 Mohammed Saleem, Vs State Rep. by Its Secretary

V. Sababathy Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Manimaran Vs the Managing Director

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass Vs the Director of Fisheries

M.Pandian, S/O Murugayyan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

D. Vasantha, Vs the Accountant General