THULUKANAM Vs. COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order in reference No. Na. Ka. 4357/95 Public Distribution No. 2. dated 18. 10. 1997 issued by the second respondent, which has been intimated by the third respondent as per the order dated 6. 3. 1998.

(3.) THE brief facts are as follows :-The petitioner was appointed as a salesman in Vadamanipakkam Co-operative Service Society. Subsequently the said Society was incorporated as GC 2349 Vadamanipakkam Primary agricultural Co-operative Bank. The petitioner was working in Orathi Fair Price Shop, which comes under the control of the third respondent. Subsequently, after conducting some inspection, it was found that rice has been sold at a price higher than the one fixed by the Government. The second respondent by Ref. No. Na. Ka. 4357/95 dated 18. 10. 1997 directed to take disciplinary action against the Special Officer and the Secretary for having advised the salesman (the present petitioner) to sell the rice at a higher price. He further directed to suspend the salesman temporarily and recover double the amount of the sales, i. e. , Rs. 82,080/ -. As per the aforesaid direction, the present third respondent issued letter dated 6. 3. 1998 placing the present petitioner under suspension with effect from 6. 3. 1998. This latter communication, which is obviously based on the direction given by the second respondent, is being challenged.