N.P.Rameshwaran v. The District Manager

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order passed by the respondent dated 18.09.2025 and quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with back wages in to the respondent corporation as the same position and in the same shop.

¶2With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a Supervisor in the TASMAC shop, at Nachinampatti, Salem District. However, allegation made against the petitioner as if the petitioner has failed to supervise the Salesman, who sold liquor by adding extra amount thereby, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated

18.09.2025. It is submitted that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 06.09.2025, the same was rejected and the impugned suspension order was passed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to review the suspension order dated 18.09.2025 by considering the petitioner's explanation dated 06.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the Page3 of 6 same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶5This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KKN To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, (TASMAC), Erode District. Page4 of 6

M.DHANDAPANI, J. KKN 26-02-2026 Page5 of 6 W.P.No.6843 of 2026 M.DHANDAPANI,J. The matter is today listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in the TASMAC Shop at Sathyamangalam, Erode District, however, in paragraph no.3 of the order dated 26.02.2026 made in W.P.No.6843 of 2026, inadvertently, it has been mentioned as 'the petitioner is working as a Supervisor in the TASMAC Shop at Nachinampatti, Salem District', and prayed for appropriate orders.

3.In view of the above, the first sentence of paragraph no.3 of the order dated 26.02.2026 made in W.P.No.6843 of 2026, is to be read as follows: "3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in the TASMAC Shop at Sathyamangalam, Erode District." M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri Page6 of 6

4.Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and re-issue copy of the order to the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.

16.03.2026 pri W.P.No.6843 of 2026

16.03.2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos. 7431 & 7432 of 2026 N.P.Rameshwaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, (TASMAC), Erode District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned suspension order passed by the respondent in Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.502/ 2025/R.1 dated 18.09.2025 and quash the same and Consequently direct the Respondent to Reinstate the Petitioner in to service along with back wages in to the respondent corporation as the same position and in the same shop. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Vimal Raj For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Sekar Page2 of 6