S.Sivasamy vs. The Managing Director
Facts
The petitioner, S. Sivasamy, was appointed as a Supervisor for TASMAC shop no.4908 in Karur District on 31.12.2003. He was later suspended on 28.11.2022 following an inspection by the District Manager. A charge memo was issued on 19.12.2022 for alleged dereliction of duty, non-cooperation, and causing revenue loss. The petitioner submitted explanations, participated in an enquiry, and was subsequently imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/-, which he remitted along with GST amounting to Rs.5,900/- on 16.03.2023. The District Manager recommended his transfer to shop no.4933, Aathur, and the Senior Regional Manager recommended his reinstatement on 05.04.2023. The petitioner made representations on 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 to the Managing Director for reinstatement, which remained unconsidered, leading to the filing of this writ petition.
Held
The Court held that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely. The non-consideration of the petitioner's representations dated 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 by the 1st respondent was deemed a dereliction of duty. Consequently, the Court directed the 1st respondent to consider these representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case. No specific finding was given on the charges or the reinstatement recommendation itself, only on the duty to consider the representations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the 1st respondent (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.) has a duty to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 regarding his reinstatement in service, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, and their failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the invocation of Article 226 powers. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for consideration of his representations.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.01.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P(MD)No.648 of 2024 S.Sivasamy
... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower-II, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., 141 & 142, M.S.R.Complex, Goundam Palayam, Coimbatore-30. 3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Compartment No.1, Ware Housing Corporation, V.S.Vellapatty Post, Karur.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent forthwith to reinstate petitioner in service at the Shop No.4933, Aathur as per the recommendation, dated 05.04.2023 made by the 2nd respondent by 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis considering petitioner's representations, dated 15.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 within time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : M
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.