CASE SUMMARY
In G. Kaliyamurthy Vs The Secretary, Co-Operative Society Department & 4 Ors., [W.P. No. 18229 of 2021], the Madras High Court has stated that ‘if the employer chooses to revoke suspension by not opting to pay subsistence allowance without extracting any work from his employee, it is up to the employer to revoke suspension and reinstate the employee into service.’
FACTS:
The Petitioner is a member of the 4th Respondent Co-Operative Society. His grievance was that the 5th Respondent, who is a salesman with the society was suspended on 27.10.2020 on charges of misappropriation of society’s funds but was later reinstated on revocation of suspension on 16.07.2021 pending domestic enquiry. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition for a mandamus directing the Respondents to suspend the 5th Respondent immediately and to conduct the domestic enquiry, including initiation of criminal action against the 5th Respondent as per Petitioner’s representation.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- 5th Respondent’s suspension was revoked and reinstated into service pending domestic enquiry despite pendency of several complaints against him;
- No disciplinary action taken on the Petitioner despite charges of misappropriation;
- Representations sent to the Respondent enumerating the facts and seeking suspension of the 5th Respondent but no action taken despite sufficient lapse of time;
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT:
- Petitioner has no locus standi to seek the relief under the Writ Petition as his right is not infringed and the issue is between the employer and the employee.
- Revocation of suspension pending enquiry is a policy decision taken by the employer instead of making payment of subsistence allowance without extracting any work and does not warrant intervention by invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Disciplinary action will be taken if charges are found to be true.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable since no legal right of the Petitioner is infringed in not taking disciplinary action by the employer on its own employee.
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Mr. Thamizhavel;
For the Official Respondents: M. Nirmalkumar;
For the private Respondents: No representation.
Date of Judgment: 22.01.2024
(This is a judgment summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments