Petitioners challenged termination orders in a departmental enquiry for adulterating liquor. The High Court declined interference, noting the charge was proved and evidence could not be disproved by petitioners.
Dismissal of W.P.Nos. 5681 and 5682 and consequentially W.M.P.Nos. 7029 and 7030.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.Nos.5681 & 5682 of 2018
V.Palani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5681 of 2018
V.Basker .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5682 of 2018
-vs-
1. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC)
Chennai 600 008
2. The District Manager
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC)
Chennai 600 008
.. Respondents in both the writ petitions
Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first
respondent in Proc.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.R1/25123/2017 dated 27.07.2017
and in Proc.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.R1/25122/2017 dated 26.07.2017
respectively, and second respondent in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.A2/No.506/CV/2015 dated 25.08.2015, quash the
same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioners in service with effect from the date of dismissal
viz., 25.08.2015 with continuity of service, back wages and
other attendant benefits.
For Petitioners :: Mr.T.Dharani
ORDER
These writ petitions are directed against the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority, confirming the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the petitioners from service for the proven charge.
this Court, finding that the finding of facts reached by the disciplinary authority was also confirmed by the appellate authority, is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.7029 & 7030 of 2018 are also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ss
To
1. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC)
Chennai 600 008
2. The District Manager
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC)
Chennai 600 008
+2cc to Mr.T.Dharani, Advocate SR.No.20144
+1cc to Mr.P.Arumugarajan, Advocate SR.No.15509
W.P.Nos.5681 & 5682 of 2018
NM(CO)
GN(03/04/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the termination order passed after a departmental enquiry where the charge of adulteration was proved by the Officer.
Whether the petitioners could deny presence at the shop when evidence caught them red-handed with adulteration tools.
V. Palani
V. Basker
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.
The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
