NAGARAJAN Vs. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, TASMAC (RETAIL VENDING)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to revoke the order of suspension passed by the respondent in Na. Ka. No. 12/8117/RB -2/2011 dated 30.01.2012 and permit the petitioner to join duty at once.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Salesman for Shop No. 7889 at Thanjavur by the respondent on 06.02.2004. He further submits that one Lakshmanan is alleged to have lodged a complaint against the petitioner and one Raja, as if they have removed bottles from TASMAC shop wherein, he was employed as Salesman on 25.01.2012 and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the said Raja in Crime No. 23 of 2012 on the file of the Sub -Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station and he was remanded to judicial custody by the District Munsif -cum -Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, on 27.01.2012. Since the petitioner was in Judicial custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by the proceedings dated 30.01.2012. He further submits that even though he was placed under suspension from 30.01.2012 onwards, the respondent did not provide subsistence allowance till date. He further submits that though in the above said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted on 11.12.2014, he was not provided any employment and the petitioner has approached the respondent seeking for revocation of suspension. The petitioner has also made a representation on 24.03.2015 in this regard, but the same was not considered by the respondent till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE order of suspension is not a punishment and the relationship between the employer and the employee subsists. When there is master and servant relationship, the suspension can be effected by the employer and it cannot be questioned except on certain grounds like competence of the Authority issuing the said order, want of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules, etc. Hence, as long as the competency of the authority issuing the suspension order is not challenged, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the suspension.