Madras High CourtWP(MD)/10515/2016disposed of

R.Sankar, S/O.Rengasamy v. The District Manager

2016-06-15Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :15.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.10515 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.8197 of 2016 R.Sankar .. Petitioner vs.

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Thanjur District. .. Respondent PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.7822/RV-2/2016, dated 18.05.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. For Petitioner :Mr.C.Jeyaprakash For Respondent :Mr.C.Kasirajan

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the suspension order issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.7822/RV2/2016, dated 18.05.2016 stating that the same is illegal and liable to be quashed.

2. It was contended that while issuing suspension order, the respondent did not even come forward to pay the subsistence allowance. That apart, the petitioner was placed under suspension, without conducting enquiry. It is further contended that when the petitioner was placed under suspension, the respondent ought to have consider the livelihood of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/TASMAC.

4. In a similar circumstance, this Court has considered the issue and passed an order, dated 05.03.2014 in W.P(MD)No.3889 of 2014, wherein it has been held as follows:

"2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension No.724/A/2013, dated 30.12.2013, passed by the second respondent. The petitioner was working in TASMAC Shop and based on certain allegations, he was placed under suspension. Though the writ petition is filed questioning the order of suspension on merits by contending that the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order are not factually correct, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the matter for the simple reason that the impugned order under challenge is only a suspension order and certainly the petitioner is entitled to raise his objections, if the respondents choose to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo etc. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot make any observation or express any view on the merits and contentions raised in this writ petition.

3. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are given liberty to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings and complete the same and pass final orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till the final order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as stated supra, the petitioner is entitled to get his subsistence allowance from the respondents. If the respondents do not choose to continue the disciplinary proceedings or do not complete the same within the time stipulated, as stated supra, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement immediately thereafter."

5. In the light of the above, the respondent is hereby directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Till the final order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to get his subsistence allowance from the date of suspension including arrears. If the respondent has not chosen to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement immediately.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Record) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Thanjur District.

+1cc to Mr.C.Jeyaprakash, Advocate SR.No.31264 sm:SKS-RR:30.06.2016:3P/3C W.P.(MD)No.10515 of 2016 15.06.2016