← Library
Madras High CourtWP/3455/2014disposed of

P.Rajkumar v. The District Manager

2021-01-19Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.3455 of 2014 P.Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Coimbatore Division, Comimbatore, Tamilnadu.

... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his service as salesman in the TASMAC, at Coimbatore Division with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan For Respondent : Mr.Sathishkumar

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as salesman with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as salesman in TASMAC Shop No.1596 situated at 100 Feet Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore, on 09.12.2003. Subsequently, he was transferred to Shop No.1666 at Varadharajapuram, Coimbatore. While he was working in the said shop, he was denied employment on suspicious ground that he was involved in possession of duplicate cap of liquor bottle, due to which, he was placed under suspension, vide order dated 15.02.2011, however, a copy of which was not served on him. Hence, he made a representation dated 26.12.2011 to the respondent requesting to furnish a copy of the suspension order. Finding no response on the said representation, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the respondent duly sent a communication to the petitioner, which was returned as unserved. However, he fairly submitted that the respondent would serve a copy of the suspension order, if a direction is issued by this Court.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, no communication was received by the petitioner relating to the order of suspension passed by the respondent against him, and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to serve a copy of the suspension order to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner is at liberty to work his remedy in the manner known to law.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vrc To The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Coimbatore Division, Comimbatore, Tamilnadu.

W.P.No.3455 of 2014 rsi (CO) A.SK(16.06.2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/