1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD) No.1236 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2011 S.Poothathan 3/79 Main Road Pambukoil Taluk Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District 627 862 ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Senior Regional Manager, (TASMAC) No.735 LLA Buildings, IV Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Manager (Chennai Region) TASMAC No.735 LLA Buildings, II floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order of termination passed by him in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.A1/8010/2010 dated 13.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.V.Karthikeyan for Mr.J.Ravindran O R D E R By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. Heard Mr.K.Gurunathan for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Karthikeyan for Mr.J.Ravindran, for the respondent corporation. 2. What is under challenge in this writ petition is to the order of termination passed by the second respondent in its proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.A1/8010/2010 dated 13.10.2010. Seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, by an order dated 24.01.2004, he was selected and appointed by the second respondent to the post of Shop Salesman on contract basis for consolidated pay and he was serving in the shop No.436 at the time of termination. While so, on 12.12.2009, there was an inspection by the squad, in which, they seized two bottles and sent the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 same for lab testing. Based on the report of the lab test, dated 17.12.2009, it was alleged that the contents of alcohol are in excess and the contents in the seized bottles are adulterated and not up to the prescribed level. The petitioner claims that the said report was not served on him. However, the respondent has proceeded with an enquiry and after the enquiry, he was relieved from service on 26.12.2009. While that being so, a charge memo was issued on 12.01.2010 and an explanation was also submitted and thereafter, an enquiry was held. Thereafter by order dated 13.10.2010, the petitioner was terminated from service by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/8010/2010. As against the order of termination, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 29.01.2010 before the first respondent. 4. It is his further case that some of the charges are not proved. However, in respect of the water mixing charges, it was proved and therefore, the entire proceedings are culminated in the order of dismissal from service. Against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 22.10.2010 before the respondents. Pending consideration of the appeal, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination on various grounds. The seized bottles should be sealed and signed before the employees by the authorities and without doing so, it has been sent to the lab for testing and therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges in favour of the petitioner and recommended for review is vitiated in law and in respect of only one charge i.e the charge of dilution, the Enquiry Officer has left the same to the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, they have not paid the subsistence allowance and the order of termination is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as he has not been afforded with a reasonable opportunity. All these grounds are raised in the appeal of the petitioner before the first respondent, which is pending consideration. 5. After elaborate argument and discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a plea that though the petitioner has challenged the order of termination on various grounds, he would urge the same before the appellate authority, which is an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner and therefore, if the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable time, leaving it open all the issues, which are all agitated before this Court to be raised before the appellate authority, the petitioner's grievance would be redressed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation after going through the material documents annexed in the typed set of papers submits that there is an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the order of termination. Without doing so, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the order of termination. However, he has not opposed if a direction is given to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal at an earlier time. 7. Considering the above circumstances and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as there is an effective alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, which has already been availed by him, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 22.10.2010 in accordance with law and on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P & A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Senior Regional Manager, (TASMAC) No.735 LLA Buildings, IV Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Manager (Chennai Region) TASMAC No.735 LLA Buildings, II floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr. G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate, Sr.NO.3942 RR W.P.No.1236 of 2011 02.02.2011 TR : 04.03.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/