S.Ramadoss v. The District Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.No.5689 of 2024 S.Ramadoss

...Petitioner

-VsThe District Managar, TASMAC Ltd., Kancheepuram (South), Kancheepuram ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Ref.efvz;/160-m1-2024 ehs;:14.02.2024. For Petitioner : M/s.D.Bharathy For Respondent : Mr.K.Balakrishnan Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the respondent, thereby the petitioner was suspended from service.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner had joined the respondent Corporation as Supervisor. While the petitioner was working in TASMAC shop No.4016, a squad of the respondent officials had inspected the petitioner's shop on 13.02.2024 and found that he had sold the liquor bottles with excess amount of Rs.20/- on the maximum retail price. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. Without being satisfied with the explanation, the respondent suspended the petitioner from service on 14.02.2024.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was on leave on the date of inspection i.e., 13.02.2024. That apart, he was only a Supervisor and the Salesmen only sold out the liquor bottles on excess price against the maximum retail price.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner, being the Supervisor, failed to supervise the sales conducted by the salesman. Admittedly, the salesman, viz., K.Gopinathan, had sold out the liquor bottle for excess price against the maximum retail price. Further, there was a prima-facie

case made out and as such, the respondent rightly suspended the petitioner from service and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondent.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is needless to say that the respondent ought to have been paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner during his suspension period. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 29.02.2024 (2/3) Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp To The District Managar, TASMAC Ltd., Kancheepuram (South), Kancheepuram.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp

and W.M.P.No.5689 of 2024 29.02.2024 (2/3)