K.Saravanan v. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P No.3335 of 2023 and W.M.P No.3397 of 2023 K.Saravanan Petitioner vs.

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC) Rep. by its District Manager, SIPCOT, Cuddalore - 607 005.

Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent bearing Se.Mu.No.A1/(RV)/3081/2429/2020 dated 17.11.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to duty forthwith with all monetary benefits from the date of suspension till date.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Subramani For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension passed by the respondent on 17.11.2021 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Shop Supervisor on contractual basis by the respondent. The petitioner was working as a Supervisor in retail Shop No.2429 at Cuddalore. During the period from 20062009, the petitioner was also a member of the Sangam, which was taking care of the interest of the TASMAC employees. Ultimately, the petitioner became the President of the Union in the year 2020.

3.It is seen from records that the petitioner had delivered a speech on 14.11.2021, wherein, he had put forth several demands on behalf of the employees working in the TASMAC and the conditions under which they are working. This speech made by the petitioner was construed by the respondent as the one demeaning the stature of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. In view of the same, the impugned suspension order came to be passed on 17.11.2021, pending enquiry. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not even paid the subsistence allowance and his suspension was also not reviewed.

4.In the meantime, charge memo was issued and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner attended the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has already submitted a report.

5.The petitioner has chosen to challenge the order of suspension mainly on the ground that he has been kept under prolonged suspension without the same being reviewed. That apart, the suspension was made by targeting the petitioner, since he in his capacity as the President of the Union had spoken for the welfare of the employees working in TASMAC. That apart, according to the petitioner, already the enquiry is over and disciplinary authority will have to consider the reply given by the petitioner and pass final orders and therefore, there is no requirement to continue the petitioner under suspension. In the light of the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 6.Heard Mr.V.Subramani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

7.In the considered view of this Court, on carefully going through the charge memo that has been served against the petitioner, this Court does not find that the petitioner has involved himself in an activity with moral turpitude. The petitioner in his capacity as the President of the Union has aired certain view in the welfare of the employees, who are engaged by TASMAC. Ultimately, it is

left open to the disciplinary authority to decide on the charges and the explanation given by the petitioner. In any case, there is no valid ground to prolong the suspension of the petitioner for more than 15 months and that too without properly paying the petitioner the subsistence allowance. 8.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the respondent to deal with the representation made by the petitioner on 13.10.2022 and review the suspension order passed against the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order. The respondent shall complete this process, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order. 9.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.02.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order : Yes/No ssr

To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, SIPCOT, Cuddalore - 607 005.

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

ssr W.P No.3335 of 2023 and W.M.P No.3397 of 2023 08.02.2023