This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent dated 20.08.2005 in Na.Ka.No.1263/2005/C.V.-2, the order of the second respondent dated 24.03.2010 in Na.Ka.No.3503/2009/A and the order of the first respondent dated 01.10.2010 in Na.Ka.No.4333/R-1/2010 and to quash the same.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor in the TASMAC, in the year 2003. While he was working in the TASMAC Shop No.2903, Palacode, the third respondent placed him under suspension for making belated payments. Thereafter, on 20.08.2005, he was terminated from service, without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner made several representations for reinstatement in service.
3. Since no order has been passed, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15111 of 2008. This Court, vide order dated 14.07.2008 directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the writ petitioner. Even after receipt of the order passed by this Court, no order has been passed by the respondents.
4. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.435 of 2010. After receiving notice, the third respondent, vide order dated 24.03.2010, has communicated the order dismissing the appeal dated 29.09.2009 preferred by the petitioner.
5. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the second respondent, which was also rejected vide order dated 23.04.2010. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that similarly placed persons have filed W.A.Nos.1619 of 2009, 1176 of 2009 and 1210 to 1212 of 2010, challenging the order of termination. A Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of termination and ordered reinstatement without back wages.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since a Division Bench of this Court has ordered reinstatement without back wages, the petitioner would be satisfied if a similar order is passed in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is willing to get reinstated without backwages.
8. Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and would submit that since the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, same order can be passed in this writ petition also.
9. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that imposing a major punishment, without conducting any enquiry is bad and therefore, following the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court, is inclined to set aside the order of termination passed by the third respondent.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 20.08.2005 passed in Na.Ka.No.1263/2005/C.V.-2 by the third respondent; order dated 24.03.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No.3503/2009/A by the second respondent; and the order dated 01.10.2010 passed in Na.Ka.No.4333/R-1/2010 by the first respondent are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, without back wages, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No asi/tk
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi/tk To
1. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Salem.
3. The District Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC), Dharmapuri District.
W.P.NO.15098 OF 2012
28.06.2017