High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 02 MAD CK 0227

S. Rajendran vs The Regional Manager and The Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 February 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Sudhakar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 10861, 11428, 11432 and 11436 of 2009, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 326 words

R. Sudhakar, J.—The petitioner in all these writ petitions is one and the same and he has filed them seeking to quash the orders of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Acc.13/3359/2009, Acc.13/3696/2008, Acc.13/3695/2008 and Acc.13/4434/2008, dated 22.07.2009 and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to refund the amount recovered from his salary.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3.

The orders under challenge are the orders passed by the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, ordering recovery of certain amounts, pursuant to the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of delinquencies committed by him, while in service.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondents objected to the filing of the writ petitions on the ground that facts are in dispute and therefore the petitioner should have gone on appeal to the appellate authority, namely the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and without exhausting the said appeal remedy, the writ petitions have been filed.

5.

The Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, as there is effective alternative remedy of appeal. Further, as facts are in dispute, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeals against the impugned orders, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If appeals are filed within 30 days, as directed above, the appellate authority can consider grant of interim relief. If no appeals are filed within the time limit prescribed above, the authorities are at liberty to proceed further in the matter. No costs. Connected M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 in all the writ petitions are dismissed and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 in all the writ petitions are closed.