1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)Nos.8970 & 9223 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1&1 of 2011 1.P.Shanmugasundaram .. Petitioner in WP.8970/11 2.K.Subramanian .. Petitioner in WP.9223/11 Vs. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Madurai, at Ramanathapuram, Main Road, Manalur Post, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents in both WPs. PRAYER IN BOTH WPs.: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.435/2011/D, dated 29.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with the services with all consequential benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.R.V.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Muniasamy COMMON ORDER In both the Writ Petitions, an order of suspension, dated 29.03.2011, issued to the Supervisors of TASMAC Shop Nos.5120 and 5125 respectively, passed by the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Madurai, are challenged. 2.According to the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Madurai, when he conducted a surprise inspection of the above said shops, on 28.03.2011, he found that one K.Sivakumar, a salesman of Shop No.5125, had sold M.c.Brandy, 375ml, at Rs.145, ten rupees more than the rate fixed by the TASMAC. Both the Sales Assistant and the petitioner/supervisor in W.P.No.9223 of 2011 were suspended. Alternative arrangements were also made for sale and supervision of the said Shop. 3.In W.P.No.8970 of 2011, the Sales Assistant in shop No.5120 was alleged to have sold "Red Sea Wine" 180 ml., at Rs.60/-, ten rupees, more than the rate fixed by the TASMAC. Hence, both the sales assistant and the writ petitioner/Supervisor were suspended. Similar to shop No.5125, alternative arrangements were also made to run the shop. 4.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases that subsequently, both the salesmen viz., Mr.K.Sivakumar and Mr.R.Anbarasan, were reinstated in service and posted to work, as sales Assistants in some other shops. Whereas, the petitioners, who are only supervisors, still languish under suspension. It is further submitted that at the time of inspection, the petitioners were not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 available in the shops and that they have not committed any mistake. 5.Considering the limited relief sought for in the writ petitions, learned counsel for the State was put on notice and heard. No counter affidavit has been filed disputing the contention of the petitioners that the salesmen of Shop Nos.5125 and 5120, TASMAC Ltd., Madurai, were reinstated and posted in some other shops. 6.The impugned order made in both the writ petitions are similar. Perusal of the same shows that when the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd, Madurai District, made a sudden inspection on 28.03.2011, he has found that the Salesmen of above said shop Nos.5125 and 5120, have sold liquor at higher rates than the one fixed by the TASMAC Ltd. For the above said irregularity, both the Salesmen and shop Supervisors, have been placed under suspension. Selling liquor at higher rates than the rate fixed by the TASMAC Ltd., is certainly, a mistake and therefore, exercise of powers by the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Madurai, to place the Salesmen and Supervisors under suspension, cannot be said to be manifest illegality. 7.However, materials on record disclose that by subsequent proceedings stated supra, both the salesmen, attached to Shop Nos.5125 and 5120, have been reinstated in service and posted to work, in the said capacity, in some other TASMAC shops. While that be so, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, who are supervisors on 28.03.2011, during surprise inspection made by the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., are also entitled to the same benefit. 8.In such view of the matter, a direction is issued to the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Madurai, to consider the case of the petitioners/Supervisors, on par with that of the salesmen. There cannot be a different yardstick, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, accordingly, on merits, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Madurai, at Ramanathapuram, Main Road, Manalur Post, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Mr.R.C.Rajkumar, Advocate, SR.No.28383 MPK : : GH : 19.08.2011 : 2p/3c Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8970 & 9223 of 2011 Dated:- 18.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/