B.Saravana Suresh v. The District Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD) No.24371 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17604 & 17605 of 2016 B.Saravana Suresh ... Petitioner -vsThe District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC) Ltd., Thanjavur 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 respondent in Na.Ka.No.8095/RV-2/2015 dated 13.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all other monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeyaprakash For Respondent : Mr.M.Muniyasamy *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2015 passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.8095/RV-2/2015, by which, the petitioner was temporarily relieved from service for the alleged misconduct and loss caused to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all other monetary benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Salesman for Rs.5,500/- per month and on such appointment, he was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a security deposit; that while so, the respondent has issued the impugned order dated 13.06.2015, temporarily suspending him from service without granting him any subsistence allowance. Contending that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking to quash the same.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The petitioner was temporarily suspended from service for committing the offence of misappropriation in the respondent Corporation and a charge memo was also issued against him, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

levelling as many as seven charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to probe into the charges and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the Enquiry Officer, who, in turn, submitted a report dated 22.09.2015 to the respondent holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. The respondent has not passed any order till now on the report forwarded by the enquiry officer.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the order of suspension is not a punishment and the relationship between the employer and the employee subsists even during the period of suspension. When there is master and servant relationship, the suspension can be effected by the employer and it cannot be questioned except on certain grounds like competence of the Authority issuing the said order, want of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules, etc. Hence, as long as the competency of the authority issuing the suspension order is not challenged, this Court cannot interfere with the order of the suspension.

6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed with direction to the respondent to pass final orders based on the enquiry report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it goes on without saying that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance and the respondent shall pay the same to the petitioner, if not already paid. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

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

+1 cc to MR.C.JeyaPrakash, ADVOCATE, SR NO: 82076 ar UM/GSV-SV/2p/3c/20.01.2017 W.P.(MD) No.24371 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17604 & 17605 of 2016 20.12.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/