S.Anbuselvam v. The General Manager (Administration)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Quality Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Mayiladuthurai Region. He continued that a charge memo dated 04.01.2024 was issued against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment…
Judgment
WP No. 50114 of 2025__________Page 1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 50114 of 2025S.Anbuselvam..PetitionerVs.
The General Manager (Administration),Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Head Officer, CMRL Building, Koyembedu, Chennai- 107.
The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Mayiladuthurai Region, Mayiladuthurai...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 04.08.2025 pending on the file of the first respondent herein regarding punishment within a time frame as fixed by this Honble court. For Petitioner: Mr.V.I.PrashanthFor Respondents: Mr.C.SelvarajAdditional Government Pleader https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 50114 of 2025__________Page 2 of 4ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 04.08.2025 pending on the file of the first respondent herein regarding punishment, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.2. Heard the learned counsels on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.
Operative part
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Quality Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Mayiladuthurai Region. He continued that a charge memo dated 04.01.2024 was issued against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of building rent, for which he has submitted a detailed explanation and participated in the enquiry, however, the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of statutory principles culminating into an order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment of six months without cumulative effect and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent on 04.08.2025, however, the same has not been disposed of till date. Further, he added that pendency of the appeal directly affects the petitioner’s service prospects, particularly, inclusion of his name in the promotion panel, for the post of Quality Inspector for the year 2023 and hence, this petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 50114 of 2025__________Page 3 of 44. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal dated 04.08.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.02.01.2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoDPTo1.The General Manager (Administration),Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Head Officer, CMRL Building, Koyembedu, Chennai- 107.2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Mayiladuthurai Region, Mayiladuthurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 50114 of 2025__________Page 4 of 4M.DHANDAPANI, J.DPWP No. 50114 of 202502.01.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
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.