Remanded

Mr.G.Velmurugan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC26 Sept 2023WP/22535/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his termination via a writ petition. The court quashed the termination order without deciding merits, directing the respondents to conduct an inquiry into the authenticity of a certificate, issue a show-cause notice, and pass final orders within 16 weeks while adhering to natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned termination order and directed the respondents to issue a notice for an enquiry regarding the fake certificate, consider fresh documents, and pass final orders within 16 weeks in

Mr.G.Velmurugan, Vs The Tamil Nadu State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.22535 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.19216 of 2016

G.Velmurugan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Rep.by its Managing Director, Villupuram.

¶11

2.The General Manager,

¶12

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent made in Ka.Ku.No.126/D3/TNSTC/Ka/2015 dated 24.05.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including continuity of service, back wages and etc.

¶14

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

¶15

2 For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents .. Ms.S.Pavithra, Standing Counsel

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records of the 2^nd respondent, General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram dated 24.05.2016 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

¶18

2.The petitioner was employed as driver in the 1^st respondent / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Limited. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and the 2^nd respondent had terminated the petitioner from service. The petitioner claimed that the disciplinary proceedings have been issued consequent to a certificate produced by him about 10^th Standard mark sheet, which admittedly even according to the petitioner was a fake certificate. A show cause notice had been issued. Even while replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner admitted that the certificate was false and stated that he had now produced a genuine certificate.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

3.The Court had permitted the respondents to conduct a preliminary enquiry about the genuinty of the certificate produced again by the petitioner herein and it is contended by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents that the certificate subsequently produced by the petitioner is genuine.

¶22

4.Without entering into the merits, the order now impugned is therefore quashed and a direction is given to the respondents to consider the explanation given by the petitioner and also the certificate given afresh by the petitioner and issue notice to the petitioner to appear for enquiry and call for explanation, as to why he originally produced a fake certificate and under what circumstances he had later produced a genuine certificate and consider the totality of the case and pass final orders. Such final orders should be passed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt

¶23

of a copy of this order. The respondents may adhere to the principles of natural justice and then pass necessary orders.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

5.With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

26.09.2023

¶29

smv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No

¶30

¶31

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Villupuram.

¶32

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

W.P.No.22535 of 2016

26.09.2023

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

Mr.G.Velmurugan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.Velmurugan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

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

M.Alagirisamy Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M.Pandiyan Vs The Chairman

Ekgambaram, S/o.chellan Vs The Commissioner and Director

S.Santhanakrishnan, Vs Treasury Officer

N.Jayalakshmi Vs Inspector General of

Munusamy, Vs Thiru.Udhayachandran, IAS