Madras High Court
The Regional Manager vs M.Devan on 14 October, 2022
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
The Regional Manager
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Dharmapuri Region,
Dharmapuri. .. Appellant
vs
M.Devan .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 08.04.2022 made in W.P.No.1694 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.S.Arivazhagan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Venkataraman
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single
Judge dated 08.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.1694 of 2014.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Quality
Inspector in the appellant / Corporation on 05.08.1982 and while so
even during his period of probation, he was suspended from service
on 21.05.1983 on contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. Thereafter,
charge memo dated 22.01.1984 was issued against him. The inquiry
proceedings were conducted by the respondent / Corporation and the
writ petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.06.2003. Thereafter,
the dismissal order was challenged by the writ petitioner in
W.P.No.19711 of 2004 and by an order dated 19.03.2012, the order of
dismissal from service was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to
be reinstated into service with effect from 20.06.2003. Thereafter, the
writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011 and
therefore it was directed that he shall be deemed to have been retired
from the service on 30.06.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
3. In this background, the question in the present writ
petition was about the treatment of period of suspension as duty. In
this context, it is the contention of the appellant / Corporation that
the writ petitioner's probation was not declared and therefore the writ
petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for. However, we find
that, the matter was carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, the dismissal order having been set aside and order of the
reinstatement of the writ petitioner having been confirmed, the writ
petitioner is entitled to the relief and the learned Single Judge has
only directed to regularize the period of suspension between
21.05.1983 and 20.06.2003 as duty for all purposes and the learned
Single Judge had also observed that the mandatory benefits accrued
during the period of suspension is restricted to 50%. In that view of
the matter, the order of learned Single Judge does not require any
interference.
4. Accordingly, the writ appeal is without merits and is
dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.17459 of 2022 is closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
14.10.2022
Index:No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
ssm/9
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.A.No.2287 of 2022
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
