K.Somasundaram, v. The Chairman,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD) Nos.17829 of 2016 K.Somasundaram ... Petitioner -vs1.The Chairman Pandyan Gram Bank, Administrative Office, 2-70-1, Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar - 626 002.

2.The General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Pandyan Gram Bank, Administrative Office, 2-70-1, Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar - 626 002.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate him in service in view of the Honble Supreme Court order in the case of Ajayakumar Choudhary -Vs-Union of India 2015 (3) CTC 119 para -14 by considering the representation dated 22.04.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Masilamani For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service in the light of the decision reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119 [Ajayakumar Choudhary -Vs-Union of India] by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2016. 2.Heard Mr.C.Masilamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an Assistant Manager in Pandyan Gram Bank at Sankaralingapuram

Branch, Virudhunagar District. While so, on 03.07.2015, the second respondent has issued an order of suspension as though the petitioner indulged in violation of banking norms. But, the respondents have not issued any charge sheet. Hence the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on 22.04.2016. As the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that previously WP(MD)No.8962 of 2016 has been filed with the same cause of action with similar relief and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is continuing cause of action and even though the earlier writ petition has been withdrawn, despite expiry of 14 months, no progress is made in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is perfectly justified in moving this Court again and this fact is not suppressed and it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph - 15 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner must be considered, as the petitioner is likely to retire within a period of one year.

6.Considering the fact that the petitioner is nearing retirement, there is no impediment and no prejudice to the respondents, if they are directed to consider the representation dated 22.04.2016.

7.Under such circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2016 in the light of the decision reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119 [Ajayakumar Choudhary -Vs-Union of India] and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar +1cc to Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate SR.No.53541 +1cc to Mr.C.Masilamani, Advocate SR.No.54212 mj sm:DB:03/11/2016:2P/3C W.P(MD)No.17829 of 2016 20.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/