S.Dhanasekar Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

S.Dhanasekar Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order of the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.R.1/8579/2018 dated 04.01.2019 set aside; matter remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration with directions to pass orders afresh within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was denied due opportunity to defend himself in the fresh enquiry conducted after remand, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. +2 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's contention that he was not given proper opportunity cannot be accepted, for the fact that the petitioner did not initiate any contempt action even though the enquiry was alleged to have been conducted contrary to the direction of this Court by denying him proper opportunity.

Ratio / Principle

The enquiry report revealed that the petitioner was given opportunity at each stage of the proceedings; hence there is no violation of fundamental principles.

Key takeaways

On the alleged discrimination between the petitioner and the co-delinquent Supervisor Sundaram, the petitioner had made no submission in that regard before the second respondent or the first respondent.ratio¶42
The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed because it was filed after a delay of two years and two months; the order was not passed on merits but on the technical ground of delay in filing the revision petition.ratio¶43
In the interest of justice, the matter is to be remitted back to the first respondent to consider it afresh, especially the lesser punishment imposed on the co-delinquent Sundaram, and to pass appropriate orders on merits afresh.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R.N. Manjula J., 10.03.2025), W.P.No.22567 of 2019: Salesman S. Dhanasekar of a Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. retail outlet, suspended after a surprise inspection by the District Manager on 30.01.2009, was dismissed following a disciplinary enquiry whose report was accepted by the disciplinary authority. His earlier writ W.P.No.19398 of 2010, alleging denial of opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, was allowed on 18.02.2011 setting aside the dismissal order dated 04.06.2009; on remand a fresh enquiry report filed on 28.12.2015 again held the charges proved, and a punishment of dismissal was imposed by order dated 20.09.2016; his revision was dismissed on 02.08.2018 and a further order dated 04.01.2019 was passed by the first respondent. Holdings: (i) the plea of denial of proper opportunity was rejected - the petitioner initiated no contempt action despite the enquiry allegedly being contrary to this Court's directions, and the enquiry report showed opportunity given at each stage, so there was no violation of fundamental principles; (ii) on the parity plea concerning reinstated co-delinquent Supervisor Sundaram, the petitioner had made no such submission before the second or first respondent; (iii) the revision had been dismissed not on merits but on the technical ground of a delay of two years and two months in filing. Disposition: writ petition partly allowed; the first respondent's order dated 04.01.2019 set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration, specifically to take into account the lesser punishment imposed on co-delinquent Sundaram, with fresh orders to be passed within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.