Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 668 (MAD)

K. Senthilkumar v. District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd. , (TASMAC), Thanjavur

2015-02-04

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Mr.M.Muniyasamy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petitions itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are challenging the common order dated 29.10.2011, passed against the petitioners suspending them from service on the allegations that there was a shortage of money to the tune of Rs.35,41,329/-. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they were placed under suspension as early as on 29.10.2011, till this date the enquiry has not been completed and no final order has been passed. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners and considering the fact that the petitioners are placed under suspension from 29.10.2011, without going into the merits and the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to the allegations made against them, this Court only directs the second respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners and pass final orders on the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.