P.Uthamaraj vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2026 Latest Caselaw 2731 Mad

Madras High Court

P.Uthamaraj vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 May, 2026

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G. R. Swaminathan

WP No. 20305 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN WP No. 20305 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 21764 OF 2026 P.Uthamaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Government of Tamil nadu Rep by its commissioner Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The managing Director Tamil nadu state Marketing, Corporation Limited (TASMAC) C.M.D.A. Tower II, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3. The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC limited, 305A Vilankurichi Road, Chintamani Co-operative Society Depot, peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004.

4. The District Manager Tamil nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to revoke the order of suspension imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.08.2025 bearing Na.Ka. No 794/ 2025 / RV1, conclude the disciplinary proceedings

__________ Page1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

initiated against the petitioner following the circular No 02/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently reinstate the petitioner into service by considering his representation dated 27.11.2025 within the time it may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Murali

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Murali, GA for R1 Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for R2 to R4

Order

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner was employed as a Salesman in a TASMAC retail outlet

and he is said to have collected Rs.10/- over and above the fixed price. Hence,

he was issued with a suspension order. The petitioner is said to have paid a sum

of Rs.10,000/- as penalty, based on the circular issued by the Management.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suspension has

been in force for more than eight months and then, it has acquired the punitive

character.

4. Any order of suspension should serve a purpose. I am prima facie

satisfied that there is no point in keeping the petitioner under suspension any

further. Be that as it may, it is the Management, that has to take a final call. The __________ Page2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner has already submitted a representation on 27.11.2025. The fourth

respondent is directed to review the petitioner’s suspension and pass appropriate

orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

5. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

GSK

__________ Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.

GSK

To

1. The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The managing Director Tamil nadu state Marketing, Corporation Limited (TASMAC) C.M.D.A. Tower II, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3. The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC limited, 305A Vilankurichi Road, Chintamani Co-operative Society Depot, peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004.

4. The District Manager Tamil nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District.

AND WMP NO. 21764 OF 2026

21-05-2026

__________ Page4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis