AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order of suspension. The impugned order of suspension reads as follows:
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
Thoothukudi District
The proceedings of the District Manager
Presided by: Mr. K. Sakthimani
Na. Ka. No. A2/696/2010 dated: 31.1.2012
Subject: TASMAC Ltd. - Thoothukudi District, TASMAC Shop employee - failed to attending the duty for opening the shop - in the interest of
administration - temporary suspension - order issued - Reg.
Ref: Related Documents
Mr. Nagarajan today (31.1.2012) without any prior information has failed in attending the duty of Salesman at TASMAC Shop No. 10095
(Kayamozhi) Thoothukudi District and he has also not handed over the charges as well as the key of the shop, accordingly he has derelicted in his
duty. As he has acted in a manner which would cause loss to the TASMAC institution, the above said person is ordered to be suspended with
effect from 31.1.2012 noon.
Sd/-
31.1.2012
Sub Collector District Manager,
TASMAC Ltd., Thoothukudi.
The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the ground of mala fide. However, the person, against whom the mala fide is alleged, has
not been implead as a party in the writ petition. Therefore, the allegations of mala fide cannot be looked into.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he has not been paid any subsistence allowance, and that though show cause notice
was issued to him on 28.2.2012, but after the receipt of the reply, no further proceedings have been initiated nor any charge memo issued to the
petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondents on other hand states, that the petitioner has been served with the charge memo and departmental
enquiry is going on against the petitioner. It is also stated that enquiry would be completed within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
dispose of the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner within one month of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The learned counsel for the respondents contended, that as the rule regarding suspension is not applicable to the petitioner, therefore, he is not
entitled to any subsistence allowance. This plea cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the petitioner stands suspended, and alleged that he has
been served with the charge memo and departmental proceedings are pending. Therefore, in absence of rule permitting suspension of an employee,
the order of suspension would be deemed to be in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of employer to suspend the employee. It is now well settled, in
absence of rule of suspension, the suspended employee is entitled to full salary during the period of suspension, on the principal that it is for
employer to take or not to take work from his employee, but the wages can not be denied during the tenure of service. The suspension does not
end the relationship of employer and employee. The respondents are therefore directed to release the wages due to the petitioner i.e., the wages
from the date of suspension till date, within 15 days of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The writ is disposed of.
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
No costs.