R.Sivamani Vs the Managing Director

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writs, orders or directions and in particular a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 3rd Respondent in Se.Mu. No. A1 (RV) / 3081/ 2684/ 2024 dated 13.11.2024 quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P.No. 6308 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. L. Shaji Chellan For Respondents : Mr. Ramesh (TASMAC)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking interference with an order issued by the third respondent, the District Manager, TASMAC, SIPCOT, Kudikaddu, Cuddalore District, dated 13.11.2024 and to quash the same.

¶20

The petitioner is employed as a supervisor in a TASMAC Shop No.2684 at Cuddalore District. It had been stated that on 05.11.2024, there was an inspection made and it was found that the daily collection on 02.11.2024 and 03.11.2024 amounting to Rs.8,49,440/- had not been deposited in the bank either on that day or on the next day. It is seen from the records that even when it was deposited, only a sum of Rs.7,37,990/- had been deposited much belatedly on 05.11.2024 and there was still a shortage of Rs.1,11,450/- which was deposited only on 13.11.2024. In view of this particular belated deposit, a showcause notice had been issued and proceedings are underway and the petitioner had been placed under suspension.

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

W.P.No. 6308 of 2025

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had suffered with an accident and therefore he was not in a position to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. But the crucial factor is when he was able to deposit a sum of Rs.7,37,990/- on 5.11.2024, no explanation is given as to why the amounts collected in entirety had not been deposited on 05.11.2024 and a portion Rs.1,11,450/- had been held back and deposited only on 13.11.2024. The petitioner had been asked to give an explanation and he had given an explanation. That had been considered in an appropriate manner and procedure as enunciated in law. I am not inclined to interfere with the suspension order.

¶25