S.Ravichandramoorthy v. The Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Following the said Judgments, theimpugned order is set aside with liberty to respondents to passfresh orders after following the principles of natural justice, ifit is warranted
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.01.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.13688 of 2004&W.P.M.P.No.18307 of 2006S.Ravichandramoorthy... Petitionervs1.The Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., rep by its Managing DirectorThalamuthu Natarajan Building 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
The Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,Coimbatore.
The District Manager-I (Retail Vending)Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,Coimbatore... RespondentsWRIT PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.369/04/A6 dated 19.05.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Shop Supervisor of TASMAC Wine shop No.1609Corporation Shopping Complex, Shop No.1, Patel Road, Coimbatorewith continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. For Petitioner -Mr.T.S.SivagnanamFor R1 -Mr.I.Paranthaman, GAFor R2 & R3 - Mr.B.Neduncheliyan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
O R D E RThe prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of termination passed on 19.05.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without giving any notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 2. The matter in issue is covered by a Judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court reported in V.L.Lakshmanakumar Vs. TheDistrict Manager,"TASMAC"Limited and another 2006(1) CTC 660,wherein learned single Judge following the Judgments of SupremeCourt reported in State of Haryana V. Satyender Singh Rathore,2005 (7) SCC 518 and Dipti Prakash Banerjee V. Satyendra Nath BoseNational Centre for Basic Sciences, 1999 (3) SCC 60 held that the order of termination based on certain allegations without any notice or opportunity of hearing is bad in law. In this case also impugned order is passed based on certain allegations and no notice or opportunity of hearing is given to he petitioner before passing the said order. Following the said Judgments, the impugned order is set aside with liberty to respondents to pass fresh orders after following the principles of natural justice, ifit is warranted. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.svkiSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Managing Director, The Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,Thalamuthu Natarajan Building 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The District Manager-I (Retail Vending)Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,Coimbatore.NTK(CO)SR/1.2.2007W.P.No.13688 of 2004
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Following the said Judgments, theimpugned order is set aside with liberty to respondents to passfresh orders after following the principles of natural justice, ifit is warranted
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.