Balakrishnan. S v. The Managing Director

ORDER Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶2The petitioner challenges the impugned order of suspension. It is seen that the petitioner is a trade union leader. The petitioner has been issued with charge memos. The petitioner has to necessarily face them and establish his innocence during enquiry. Be that as it may, the primary reason for passing the suspension order appears to be that the petitioner had not been reporting for duty in uniform. He also had breached the service regulation by giving interviews. I made it clear to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that unless the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking to come in uniform, I will not even hear the writ petition.

¶3The petitioner filed an affidavit today stating that henceforth he will come in uniform. Initially, the petitioner tried to put a condition that the authorities must give uniform material and also stitching charges. I made it clear that such conditions cannot be stipulated. Thereupon, the petitioner through his counsel gave a solemn undertaking that henceforth he will come in uniform. It is further undertaken that while the petitioner will insist on sticking to 8 hours duty, he will undertake to complete the route duty originally assigned to him. These twin undertakings are placed on record. The petitioner is directed to cooperate for enquiry. The petitioner undertakes not to give any press release or interview.

¶4I am of the view that continuation of the impugned suspension order is not going to serve any purpose. The rights of the petitioner will abide by the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The impugned suspension order need not continue. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.

¶5The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 25.04.2023

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

24.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.6355 of 2023 S.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dindigul. 3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Theni. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in ghh;it LD4TN/3906, dated 17.02.2023 and quash as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel