The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/428/2014 dated 12.12.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as salesman in any one of the TASMAC Shop in Chennai-Central District forthwith.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Shop Sales Man in the Retail Vending Shops in TASMAC on 26.01.2004 by the District Manager, TASMAC, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. It appears that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as security deposit. While he was working in Shop No.428, he said to have taken 5 days leave due to his health problems, after submitting medical leave letter through the shop supervisor to the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, it is stated that the petitioner was also admitted as an inpatient in the hospital for the viral fever suffered by him. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have submitted various representations along with medical report to the 2nd respondent. Inspite of submitting the representations along with medical report, the petitioner has been terminated without notice and without holding enquiry by violating the principles of natural justice. Challenging the impugned order dated 12.12.2014, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. The said impugned order is extracted hereunder:-
lh!;khf; ypl; - brd;id (kj;jpak;) khtl;lj;jpw;Fl;gl;l kJghd rpy;yiw tpw;gid fil vz;/428-d; Kd;dhs; tpw;gidahsh; jpU/K.tPuhrhkp mth;fs; ,t;tYfj;jpw;F Kd;dwptpg;gpd;wp ePz;l ehs;fs; gzpf;F tuhky; ,Ue;jjhYk; mjw;F jFe;j Mjhu';fis rkh;g;gpf;fhky; ,Ue;jjhYk; kPz;Lk; gzp tH';f ,ayhJ vd cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that he is also unable to support the impugned order. The reason is, the impugned order does not speak about the issuance of any prior notice or holding of enquiry on the charge memo. However, he pleaded that the petitioner need not be paid with back-wages.
4. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner need not be paid with back-wages, does not carry any justification. The reason is, the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 is cryptic, containing only four lines and does not speak about the issuance of any prior notice or holding of any enquiry. Hence the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay 70% of the salary to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The respondents are at liberty to issue show cause notice and proceed further if so advised.
T.RAJA,J., ssd
5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.