Senior Regional Manager (North) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. NONE

WP.No.19553 of 20122.The Senior Regional Manager (North) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 bearing Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.A24/8252/2009 on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 bearing reference proceedings No.AD1/59977/2010 and quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages, monetary and other benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saravanan for M/s.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sankareshwaran for R1 & R2ORDERWhile the petitioner was working as a Bill Clerk at Fair Price Shop CRS 38, A.E.Koil Street, Thondiarpet Area, belonging to the respondent/Corporation. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and he was placed under suspension, and a charge memo 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012dated 06.11.2009, containing three charges was issued to the petitioner. The said three charges reads as under: Fw;wr;rhl;L 1 jdpah; jhd; gl;oay; vGj;jh; vd;w gzpapypUe;J eGtp mKjk; rpy;yiw m';fho 38 V/,/,fhapy; bjU filapy; 29/06/2009 md;W g[/mhprp 70 fpnyh kl;Lk; bghJ kf;fSf;F fhh;L K:yk; tpw;gid bra;J fzf;fpy; 10 Ftpz;lhy; 70 fpnyh tpw;gid vd;w bgha; fzf;F vGjp. mjw;fhd bjhifia t';fpapy; ,Urhy; bra;jjd; K:yk; 10 Ftpz;lhy; mhprpia Rayhgj;jpw;fhf gad;gLj;jp cs;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L 2 ,th; bghJ tpepnahfj;jpw;F xJf;fg;gl;l fHfj;jpw;F brhe;jkhd mj;jpahtrpag;gz;l';fspy; U:/13.088/50 igrh kjpg;gpw;F ,Ug;g[ Fiwt[fs; Vw;gLj;jp fhh;Ljhuh;fis Vkhw;wp fHfj;jpw;F ,Hg;gpid Vw;gLj;jpa[s;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L 3 ,tuJ braypdhy; fHfj;jpw;F bkhj;j U:/29.640-? ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy; ele;Js;shh;/ 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 20122. In the said charge memo, the background facts were mentioned at Paragraph No.1 which reads as under:vz;/38/V/,/,fhapy; bjU. m';fhoapy; jpU/vd;/kPdhl;rp Re;juk; gl;oay; vGj;jh; mth;fs; 29/06/2009 md;W g[G';fy; mhprp ml;iljhuh;fSf;F 9/70 fpnyh kl;Lk; gl;oaypl;L tH';fptpl;L. ‘rp’ gjpntl;oYk; ,Ug;g[ gjpntl;oYk; 10/70 fpnyh tpw;gidahdjhf fzf;fpy; bfhz;L te;J ,jw;fhd bjhifia gl;oay; g[j;jfj;jpy; gl;oay; nghlhky; gzj;ij ifahly; bra;J 10/70 fpnyh mstpw;F tpw;gid bra;jjhf gzj;jpid t';fpapy; brYj;jpa[s;shh; kw;Wk; ,Ug;g[ g[j;jf';fs; 10/70 fpnyh vd;W 29/06/2009 md;W fHpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 10/00 Ftpd;lhy; mhprp fhh;LfhuUf;F tpepnahfk; bra;ahky; Rayhg nehf;Fld; ifahly; bra;J fHfj;ij Vkhw;wp cs;shh;/ g[G';fy; mhprp 1000 fpnyhtpy; kjPg;gPl;Lj; bjhif U:/16.580- MFk; 3.After framing the said charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conduct of an enquiry, the charges were found to be proved and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service by 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012the 2nd respondent through proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A24/8252/2009 dated 30.04.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent which was rejected through proceedings No. br/K/Miz vz;.Vo.1/59977/2010 dated 08.05.2012. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 30.04.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 08.05.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Though during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner passed away, the petitioners 2 to 4 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner.4.In the paragraph No.1 of the charge memo, it is alleged that the petitioner, after distributing 9 quintals and 70 Kgs of boiled rice to the card holders, accounted for 10 quintal and 70 Kgs in the C Register and Stock Register and also deposited the value of 10 quintals and 70 Kgs into the Bank, though he has not distributed 10 quintals of boiled rice to the card holders and misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.16,560/- which is the value of 10 quintals of boiled rice. Thus, it is 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012categorically stated in the Charge memo, that the petitioner has distributed 9 quintal and 70 Kgs and accounted for 10 quintals and 70 Kgs. However, Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner has distributed only 70 Kgs of rice, but accounted for 10.70 qunital of rice and deposited the value of the same into the Bank, thereby causing loss. The Charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner is that he has caused a loss of Rs.13,088.50 to the Corporation due to shortage of various items, thereby cheated the card holders and the Corporation causing monetary loss to the Corporation. The Charge No. 3 pertains to the loss caused by the petitioner to the Corporation under Charges 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.29,649/-.5. As against the said charges the petitioner submitted his reply and by considering the said reply as the admission on the part of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer without examining any witnesses and without marking any document on behalf of the respondent Corporation, proceeded to hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The 2nd respondent having accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012from service. Basis for the 2nd respondent and the enquiry officer to conclude that the charges are proved is the admission said to have been made by the petitioner in his explanation. The stand of the respondents in this regard is evident from paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition which reads as under:''I submit that thereafter proper inspection were conducted and the Respondents' corporation found that apart from the misappropriation of stocks of boiled rice by the Petitioner, there is a shortage of grocery items. Then, the Petitioner was immediately placed under suspension and the Departmental/Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated. In the said Departmental/Disciplinary Proceedings, the Petitioner neither asked for production of documents nor cross-examination of witness & adducing evidence through witnesses. Instead, there is an admission of wrong entry in the Stock Register & C Register regarding the Boiled Rice by the Petitioner due to his various problems. Further the Petitioner submitted that the shortage of grocery items was due to wastage unsold products which later expired. Except the above, there is no other valid grounds were 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012raised by the Petitioner but the Petitioner prays for leniency from the Respondents. 6.From the above, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted that there was a wrong entry in the Stock register and C Register regarding the boiled rice. The said statement of the petitioner about the wrong entry being made in the Stock Register and C Register was treated as an admission on the part of the petitioner in having committed the alleged misconduct. When the petitioner has stated that the said discrepancy is because of wrong entry made by him due to work pressure, it is for the respondent Corporation to adduce proper evidence either by examining witness or by bringing on record the relevant documents to establish that the petitioner has committed the misconduct thereby causing loss to the Corporation as alleged in the Charge No.1. But admittedly, no witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent Corporation nor any documents were placed on record to prove the said charge. 7.Then, coming to the charge no. 2, the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that shortage of grocery items was due to wastage and 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012unsold products. By saying so, the petitioner has admitted about the shortage of the stock but the wastage is the reason for said shortage. In such case, it is incumbent upon the respondent Corporation to verify whether the said reason assigned by the petitioner is correct or not, by adducing appropriate evidence and by conducting an enquiry accordingly. But in the instant case, the said statement made by the petitioner in his explanation was treated as an acceptance of misconduct and the enquiry officer proceeded to conclude that the charges were admitted by the petitioner. Such an approach by the Enquiry Officer and the 2nd respondent and conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer based on no evidence cannot be said to be in accordance with law, but are bound to be declared as perverse. 8.Once the charges are framed against the petitioner herein it is for the respondent Corporation to adduce appropriate evidence and then afford an opportunity for cross examination to the petitioner and establish the charge against the petitioner. Admittedly, no witnesses were examined in the course of enquiry nor any documents were brought on record to establish the charges. In the absence of any 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012evidence being adduced by the respondent Corporation in support of the charges, holding the charges proved on the ground that the petitioner has not chosen to examine any defence witnesses or on the prosecution side is totally an erroneous approach and thus, the entire process of conducting is also enquiry is vitiated. Further, the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18365 of 1999, in an identical case while disposing of the writ petition by an order dated 04.09.2008, held that:''In the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, it is found that enquiry was conducted in a very casual manner. No Witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents and no documents are also found to have been marked to substantiate the case of the respondents against the petitioner. The enquiry report as found annexed in the typed set of papers shows that the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner was proved on the basis of a face to face enquiry conducted by him. There was no indication in the enquiry report as to how the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. When there is a procedure prescribed in the service regulation for conduct of enquiry, such procedure should have been followed by the Enquiry Officer and the failure to follow 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012such procedure would result in nullifying the very enquiry.9.Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, without application of mind to the facts of the case, in a mechanical manner, proceed to confirm the order of punishment by order dated 08.05.2012.10.In the light of the above, the impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 is confirmed by the 1st respondent by an order dated 08.05.2012 is liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. In the normal course this Court would have remanded the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration of the matter. But considering the fact that the petitioner is no more and it is not possible for the respondent to conduct an enquiry nor it is possible for the petitioners 2 to 4 to defend or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and also the long lapse of time, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the matter at this stage itself, instead of permitting the respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the demise of the delinquent employee. 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 201211.Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and pay all terminal benefits to the petitioners 2 to 4 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the delinquent employee shall not be entitled for any backwages from the date of placing him under suspension till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. However, the said service shall be counted for all other purposes.11.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.08.2024 vsnInternet:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking order12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.vsnW.P.No.19553 of 2012and M.P.No.1 of 201229.08.202413/13

WP.No.19553 of 20122.The Senior Regional Manager (North) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 bearing Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.A24/8252/2009 on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 bearing reference proceedings No.AD1/59977/2010 and quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages, monetary and other benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saravanan for M/s.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sankareshwaran for R1 & R2ORDERWhile the petitioner was working as a Bill Clerk at Fair Price Shop CRS 38, A.E.Koil Street, Thondiarpet Area, belonging to the respondent/Corporation. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and he was placed under suspension, and a charge memo 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012dated 06.11.2009, containing three charges was issued to the petitioner. The said three charges reads as under: Fw;wr;rhl;L 1 jdpah; jhd; gl;oay; vGj;jh; vd;w gzpapypUe;J eGtp mKjk; rpy;yiw m';fho 38 V/,/,fhapy; bjU filapy; 29/06/2009 md;W g[/mhprp 70 fpnyh kl;Lk; bghJ kf;fSf;F fhh;L K:yk; tpw;gid bra;J fzf;fpy; 10 Ftpz;lhy; 70 fpnyh tpw;gid vd;w bgha; fzf;F vGjp. mjw;fhd bjhifia t';fpapy; ,Urhy; bra;jjd; K:yk; 10 Ftpz;lhy; mhprpia Rayhgj;jpw;fhf gad;gLj;jp cs;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L 2 ,th; bghJ tpepnahfj;jpw;F xJf;fg;gl;l fHfj;jpw;F brhe;jkhd mj;jpahtrpag;gz;l';fspy; U:/13.088/50 igrh kjpg;gpw;F ,Ug;g[ Fiwt[fs; Vw;gLj;jp fhh;Ljhuh;fis Vkhw;wp fHfj;jpw;F ,Hg;gpid Vw;gLj;jpa[s;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L 3 ,tuJ braypdhy; fHfj;jpw;F bkhj;j U:/29.640-? ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy; ele;Js;shh;/ 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 20122. In the said charge memo, the background facts were mentioned at Paragraph No.1 which reads as under:vz;/38/V/,/,fhapy; bjU. m';fhoapy; jpU/vd;/kPdhl;rp Re;juk; gl;oay; vGj;jh; mth;fs; 29/06/2009 md;W g[G';fy; mhprp ml;iljhuh;fSf;F 9/70 fpnyh kl;Lk; gl;oaypl;L tH';fptpl;L. ‘rp’ gjpntl;oYk; ,Ug;g[ gjpntl;oYk; 10/70 fpnyh tpw;gidahdjhf fzf;fpy; bfhz;L te;J ,jw;fhd bjhifia gl;oay; g[j;jfj;jpy; gl;oay; nghlhky; gzj;ij ifahly; bra;J 10/70 fpnyh mstpw;F tpw;gid bra;jjhf gzj;jpid t';fpapy; brYj;jpa[s;shh; kw;Wk; ,Ug;g[ g[j;jf';fs; 10/70 fpnyh vd;W 29/06/2009 md;W fHpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 10/00 Ftpd;lhy; mhprp fhh;LfhuUf;F tpepnahfk; bra;ahky; Rayhg nehf;Fld; ifahly; bra;J fHfj;ij Vkhw;wp cs;shh;/ g[G';fy; mhprp 1000 fpnyhtpy; kjPg;gPl;Lj; bjhif U:/16.580- MFk; 3.After framing the said charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conduct of an enquiry, the charges were found to be proved and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service by 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012the 2nd respondent through proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A24/8252/2009 dated 30.04.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent which was rejected through proceedings No. br/K/Miz vz;.Vo.1/59977/2010 dated 08.05.2012. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 30.04.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 08.05.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Though during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner passed away, the petitioners 2 to 4 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner.4.In the paragraph No.1 of the charge memo, it is alleged that the petitioner, after distributing 9 quintals and 70 Kgs of boiled rice to the card holders, accounted for 10 quintal and 70 Kgs in the C Register and Stock Register and also deposited the value of 10 quintals and 70 Kgs into the Bank, though he has not distributed 10 quintals of boiled rice to the card holders and misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.16,560/- which is the value of 10 quintals of boiled rice. Thus, it is 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012categorically stated in the Charge memo, that the petitioner has distributed 9 quintal and 70 Kgs and accounted for 10 quintals and 70 Kgs. However, Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner has distributed only 70 Kgs of rice, but accounted for 10.70 qunital of rice and deposited the value of the same into the Bank, thereby causing loss. The Charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner is that he has caused a loss of Rs.13,088.50 to the Corporation due to shortage of various items, thereby cheated the card holders and the Corporation causing monetary loss to the Corporation. The Charge No. 3 pertains to the loss caused by the petitioner to the Corporation under Charges 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.29,649/-.5. As against the said charges the petitioner submitted his reply and by considering the said reply as the admission on the part of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer without examining any witnesses and without marking any document on behalf of the respondent Corporation, proceeded to hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The 2nd respondent having accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012from service. Basis for the 2nd respondent and the enquiry officer to conclude that the charges are proved is the admission said to have been made by the petitioner in his explanation. The stand of the respondents in this regard is evident from paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition which reads as under:''I submit that thereafter proper inspection were conducted and the Respondents' corporation found that apart from the misappropriation of stocks of boiled rice by the Petitioner, there is a shortage of grocery items. Then, the Petitioner was immediately placed under suspension and the Departmental/Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated. In the said Departmental/Disciplinary Proceedings, the Petitioner neither asked for production of documents nor cross-examination of witness & adducing evidence through witnesses. Instead, there is an admission of wrong entry in the Stock Register & C Register regarding the Boiled Rice by the Petitioner due to his various problems. Further the Petitioner submitted that the shortage of grocery items was due to wastage unsold products which later expired. Except the above, there is no other valid grounds were 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012raised by the Petitioner but the Petitioner prays for leniency from the Respondents. 6.From the above, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted that there was a wrong entry in the Stock register and C Register regarding the boiled rice. The said statement of the petitioner about the wrong entry being made in the Stock Register and C Register was treated as an admission on the part of the petitioner in having committed the alleged misconduct. When the petitioner has stated that the said discrepancy is because of wrong entry made by him due to work pressure, it is for the respondent Corporation to adduce proper evidence either by examining witness or by bringing on record the relevant documents to establish that the petitioner has committed the misconduct thereby causing loss to the Corporation as alleged in the Charge No.1. But admittedly, no witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent Corporation nor any documents were placed on record to prove the said charge. 7.Then, coming to the charge no. 2, the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that shortage of grocery items was due to wastage and 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012unsold products. By saying so, the petitioner has admitted about the shortage of the stock but the wastage is the reason for said shortage. In such case, it is incumbent upon the respondent Corporation to verify whether the said reason assigned by the petitioner is correct or not, by adducing appropriate evidence and by conducting an enquiry accordingly. But in the instant case, the said statement made by the petitioner in his explanation was treated as an acceptance of misconduct and the enquiry officer proceeded to conclude that the charges were admitted by the petitioner. Such an approach by the Enquiry Officer and the 2nd respondent and conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer based on no evidence cannot be said to be in accordance with law, but are bound to be declared as perverse. 8.Once the charges are framed against the petitioner herein it is for the respondent Corporation to adduce appropriate evidence and then afford an opportunity for cross examination to the petitioner and establish the charge against the petitioner. Admittedly, no witnesses were examined in the course of enquiry nor any documents were brought on record to establish the charges. In the absence of any 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012evidence being adduced by the respondent Corporation in support of the charges, holding the charges proved on the ground that the petitioner has not chosen to examine any defence witnesses or on the prosecution side is totally an erroneous approach and thus, the entire process of conducting is also enquiry is vitiated. Further, the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18365 of 1999, in an identical case while disposing of the writ petition by an order dated 04.09.2008, held that:''In the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, it is found that enquiry was conducted in a very casual manner. No Witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents and no documents are also found to have been marked to substantiate the case of the respondents against the petitioner. The enquiry report as found annexed in the typed set of papers shows that the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner was proved on the basis of a face to face enquiry conducted by him. There was no indication in the enquiry report as to how the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. When there is a procedure prescribed in the service regulation for conduct of enquiry, such procedure should have been followed by the Enquiry Officer and the failure to follow 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012such procedure would result in nullifying the very enquiry.9.Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, without application of mind to the facts of the case, in a mechanical manner, proceed to confirm the order of punishment by order dated 08.05.2012.10.In the light of the above, the impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 is confirmed by the 1st respondent by an order dated 08.05.2012 is liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. In the normal course this Court would have remanded the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration of the matter. But considering the fact that the petitioner is no more and it is not possible for the respondent to conduct an enquiry nor it is possible for the petitioners 2 to 4 to defend or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and also the long lapse of time, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the matter at this stage itself, instead of permitting the respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the demise of the delinquent employee. 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 201211.Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and pay all terminal benefits to the petitioners 2 to 4 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the delinquent employee shall not be entitled for any backwages from the date of placing him under suspension till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. However, the said service shall be counted for all other purposes.11.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.08.2024 vsnInternet:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking order12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.19553 of 2012MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.vsnW.P.No.19553 of 2012and M.P.No.1 of 201229.08.202413/13