Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2472 (MAD)

C. Sunilkumar v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) rep. by its District Manager- Tiruppur

2013-07-16

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in TASMAC Wine Shop No.1892 in Tirupur District. Later on, he was transferred to the Shop No.1840 and thereafter to Shop No.1853. While so, he was removed from service by an order dated 8.7.2005 of the respondent making certain allegations against him. 3. Admittedly, no enquiry was held against the petitioner before passing the impugned order and others against whom similar orders have been passed, have approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.3718, 3720 and 3721 of 2010 and this Court dismissed the same by order dated 24.2.2010 on the ground that they belatedly approached this Court. 4. When they approached the First Bench of this Court by way of filing Writ Appeals in Writ Appeal Nos.1210 to 1212 of 2010, by judgment dated 8.7.2010, the Writ Appeals were partly allowed, directing the respondent to reinstate them without back wages and liberty was given to the respondent to hold an enquiry and to give opportunity to the appellants therein. 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment dated 8.7.2010 made in W.A.Nos.1210 to 1212 of 2010, the impugned order dated 8.7.2005 of the respondent is also set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner without back wages immediately. It is open to the respondent to hold enquiry against the petitioner and take necessary steps after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.