Dismissed¶41

The Management v. the Appellate Authority Under

Madras HC17 Nov 2025WP(MD)/625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; WP(MD)No.625 of 2022; decided 17.11.2025; Judge B. Pugalendhi; Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 Section 41(1); dismissal without enquiry; satisfactory evidence recorded at enquiry; admission of guilt unsupported; primary agricultural co-operative bank; fair price shop; stock shortage; charge memo; suspension; certiorari; Appellate Authority / Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai; TNSE.No.1 of 2016; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Considering the manner in which the petitioner management defended the second respondent's application before the first respondent, this Court cannot find fault with the order of the first respondent, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. ¶41

The Management Vs the Appellate Authority Under — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the first respondent in TNSE.No.1 of 2016, allowing the second respondent's application against his dismissal, ought to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that the second respondent admitted guilt was not substantiated before the appellate authority, as no document and no enquiry report were placed before the first respondent, which accordingly allowed the application; this Court endorsed that outcome by declining to find fault with the appellate order.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of certiorari under Article 226 filed by the management of a primary agricultural co-operative bank against the order dated 17.12.2021 of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai) in TNSE.No.1 of 2016, whereby the authority allowed the application of an employee dismissed by the bank's order dated 22.06.2009. The employee's case was that he was in charge of three fair price shops, that stock shortage occurred and its cost was paid by him, yet he was issued a charge memo, suspended and dismissed without conducting any enquiry. The judgment reproduces Section 41(1) of the 1947 Act, under which services may be dispensed with on a charge of misconduct only where supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose. Though the management contended the employee had admitted guilt, no document or enquiry report was placed before the first respondent. Considering the manner in which the management defended the application, the Court found no fault with the appellate order and dismissed the writ petition with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition WMP(MD)No.503 of 2022.

¶1

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.503 of 2022

¶7

The Management, SP.SPL.134, Matthinyakkanpatti, Primari Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kulloor Sandhai, Virudhunagar District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

¶11

2.D.Vadivel

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in TNSE.No.1 of 2016, dated 17.12.2021 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar, No.1 Special Government Pleader

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner bank has filed this writ petition as against the orders passed by the 1^st respondent authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The 2^nd respondent has filed an application before the 1^st respondent challenging the order passed by the petitioner bank dated 22.06.2009, by which the 2^nd respondent was dismissed from service. The 1^st respondent has allowed the application by order dated 17.12.2021. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner management has filed this writ petition.

¶20

2.When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner on 27.10.2025 and 29.10.2025. Therefore, this court by earlier order dated 29.10.2025 directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the petitioner bank and to proceed with the case. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner management has appeared and submitted that the 2^nd respondent has committed misappropriation and he has also admitted the same by way of letter before the enquiry officer.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022

¶24

3.The grievance of the 2^nd respondent is that he was in charge of

¶25

three fair price shops at a time and there was some shortage in the stock, and he has also paid the cost of the shortage goods. However, he was issued with a charge memo, he was placed under suspension and later on

¶26

he was dismissed from service, without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the authority has allowed the application.

¶27

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

¶28

5.Though the petitioner has contended that the 2^nd respondent had

¶29

admitted the guilt, no document was placed by the petitioner management before the 1^st respondent. The enquiry report was also not placed before the 1^st respondent and therefore, the 1^st respondent allowed the application as under:

¶30

“6/ ,t;tHf;F rk;ge;jkhd tprhuiz 06/10/2021 md;W eilbgw;w nghJ ,Ujug;gpYk; rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fs; ,y;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;L thJiuf;fhf tHf;F 20/0/2021 md;W xj;jp itf;fg;gl;lJ/ md;iwa jpdk; eilbgw;w

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022

¶34

tprhuizapd;nghJ vjph;kDjhuh; - eph;thf jug;gpy; M$uhfhjyhy;. Twpf;bfhs;s thJiuapy; VJkpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ”

¶35

7/1947k; tUl jkpH;ehL filfs; kw;Wk; epWtd';fs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 41(1)y; “ No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however, that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose. ” vd cs;sJ/

¶36

nkw;fz;l rl;lg;gphptpd; goa[k;. vd; Kd;dh; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l eph;thfj; jug;g[ gjpYiuapd; mog;gilapYk; ghprPyid bra;ifapy;. nky;KiwaPl;L kDjhuh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L jpUg;jpfukhd rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; nky;KiwaPl;L vjph;kDjhuh; - eph;thfj;jpduhy; Kd;dplg;gltpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;J md;dhUf;F vjpuhf 22/06/2009k; Mk; njjpapy; nky;KiwaPl;L vjph;kDjhuuhy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l gzpePf;f cj;juit uj;J bra;J ,jd; K:yk; cj;jutpLfpnwd;/”

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

WP(MD)No.625 of 2022

¶40

6.This court considering the manner in which the petitioner

¶41

management has defended the application of the 2^nd respondent before the 1^st respondent, cannot find fault with the order of the 1^st respondent. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.11.2025

DSK

The Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48