Disposed

N.R.Manoharan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC15 Sept 2021WP/19323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order imposing a fine and threatening termination on a TASMAC employee for audit shortage without a prior show-cause notice. The court quashed the order for violating principles of natural justice, directed the respondents to issue the impugned order as a show-cause notice and allowed the petitioner to reply within 30 days, mandating suspension and subsistence allowa

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent to treat it as show-cause notice; petitioner to reply within 30 days; respondents to pass final order within two weeks; period treated as suspension with subsistence

N.R.Manoharan Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.19323 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.20629 & 20630 of 2021

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

N.R.Manoharan

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), IV- Floor, CMDA Tower II Office Complex, Gandhi-Irwin Bridge Road,

¶10

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶11

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Trichy Region, Old Collector Office Complex, Trichirapalli.

¶12

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai Main Road, Villupuram – 605 602. ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records related to Na.Ka.No.A6/11793/2021 dated 19 August 2021 issued by the third respondent and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to continue to employ the Petitioner as Supervisor to Shop No.11793.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vedhavel

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order demanding an amount of Rs.11,990/- (fine Rs.9,770/- GST Rs.1,829/- and interest Rs.391/-). As the amount found shortage due to audit conducted by the auditors of the 1^st respondent. As per the order, the petitioner is further required to pay a aforesaid amount together with 50% interest, failing which, he would be removed from service.

¶19

2.The admitted facts on record is that, an audit was conducted on 19.01.2021. Thereafter, no notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not held liable for the shortage and to pay the amount as per the Rules applicable TASMAC.

¶20

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision for issuing show cause notice, nevertheless the principles of natural justice is required to be complied before any drastic orders are passed by either terminating the services of an employee or where monetary penalty are imposed on an employee for any loss.

¶21

4.Considering the fact that the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 stands quashed it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. However, the content of the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 which stands quashed by this order shall be treated as a show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall thereafter pass an appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after considering the representation/reply if any of the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. The period from 19.08.2021 shall be treated as a period under suspension. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the aforesaid period.

¶22

5.This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar jas

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), IV- Floor, CMDA Tower II Office Complex, Gandhi-Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Trichy Region, Old Collector Office Complex, Trichirapalli. 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai Main Road, Villupuram – 605 602. +2cc to Mr.K.Sakthivel, Advocate, S.R.No.46753

¶29

W.P.No.19323 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.20629 & 20630 of 2021

¶30

PA(CO) RGA(05/10/2021)

¶31

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

N.R.Manoharan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.R.Manoharan 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

S.Susheela Vs The Director of Elementary Education

M.Kalpana Mahalingam Vs The Secretary

G.Murugan, (Mhr 607) Vs The Managing Director

S.Baskar Vs The Government of TamilNadu

S.Gopal Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

S.PanduRangan Vs The Secretary