Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.SENTHIL KUMA versus THE DIRECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.Senthil Kuma v. The Director - W.P.(MD) No.1990 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1247 (3 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 03/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.SUGUNA

W.P.(MD) No.1990 of 2007

and M.P.No.1 of 2007

A.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Director

TASMAC Limited., Chennai.

2.The Zonal Manager

TASMAC Limited

Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The District Manager

TASMAC Limited,

Madurai, Madurai District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1403-05,A dated 2.9.2005 and to quash the same and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen For Respondents ... Mr.J.Ravindran

:ORDER



This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 2.9.2005, by which the petitioner's contract of service was put an end.

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on certain allegations, the petitioner's service contract has been terminated. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this order has been issued without any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3.The learned counsel for the respondents also admitted that the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner.

4.In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 2.9.2005 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings by providing reasonable opportunity to him and pass orders in accordance with law.

rpa

To

1.The Director

TASMAC Limited., Chennai.

2.The Zonal Manager

TASMAC Limited

Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The District Manager

TASMAC Limited,

Madurai, Madurai District.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.