Disposed

A.R.Ramesh v. the Managing Director

Madras HC9 Aug 2023WP/19268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging suspension orders. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the two petitioners who appeared, and upon direction to the other two petitioners to appear for an inquiry, directed the respondents to reinstate all four petitioners within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to reinstate all four petitioners within one month after completing the inquiry directed to Petitioner 1 and 4.

A.R.Ramesh Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.19268 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.19268 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.18515 & 18516 of 2023

1.A.R.Ramesh

2.R.Hariprasad

3.V.Baskar

4.M.Selvam .. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.The Managing Director

¶13

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

¶14

The Senior Regional Manager Chennai Region

¶15

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) No.735, LLA Building 4^th Floor, Annasalai Chennai – 600 002

¶16

The District Manager Kancheepuram North District The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Thirumazhisai, Chembarambakkam Chennai – 600 123

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the Order in Na.Ka.No.4511/SUS/A1/2023 dated 08.06.2023 order issued by the third respondent and quash the same.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/4

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Narendiran

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan

¶23

WP.No.19268 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the Order in Na.Ka.No.4511/SUS/A1/2023 dated 08.06.2023 issued by the third respondent.

¶26

Though this petition is filed by the petitioners challenging their suspension order dated 08.06.2023. Now, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners 2 and 3 appeared before the respondents and

¶27

the respondents are considering the reinstatement of the petitioners 2 and 3. Further, submitted that if the petitioners 1 and 4 appears before them, they will consider the reinstatement of the petitioners 1 and 4 also. Such statement is recorded.

¶28

Such view of the matter, the petitioners 1 and 4 are directed to appear

¶29

for enquiry before the respondents and the respondents shall pass an order of reinstatement within a period of one month. The respondents has also agreed to reinstate the petitioners.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/4

¶32

WP.No.19268 of 2023

¶33

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶35

09.08.2023

¶36

dhk Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶37

¶38

1.The Managing Director The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

¶39

The Senior Regional Manager Chennai Region The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) No.735, LLA Building 4^th Floor, Annasalai Chennai – 600 002

¶40

The District Manager Kancheepuram North District The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Thirumazhisai, Chembarambakkam Chennai – 600 123

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

3/4

¶43

WP.No.19268 of 2023

¶44

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk

W.P.No.19268 of 2023

09.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

4/4

A.R.Ramesh v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Ramesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.M. Murali Prasatha Rao Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

S.Raja Rekha Vs The Registrar

M.Adhimoolam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Raghu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

C.S.I.Higher Secondary School for The Deaf Vs The State Commissioner /

A.Periyasamy Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies