Back
M. S. RAMESH
R. Veerakumar – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. , Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter No.2355/D/86 dated 18.08.1986 from the files of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits.)
1. In connection with a criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension through the impugned order dated 18.08.1986. Subsequently, he was acquitted from the criminal case on 24.04.1989. However, the order of suspension dated 18.08.1986, has not been revoked by the respondent-Management. This impugned order is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation.
3. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. When the petitioner herein had filed Claim Petitions in C.P.Nos.33 of 2000 and 3 of 2002 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “A
The legal principle established is that a government servant reinstated after acquittal from a criminal case is entitled to have the period of absence, including suspension, treated as duty for all p....
An employee involved in a criminal case, despite subsequent acquittal, may not be entitled to full salary for a suspension period if the involvement in the crime disabled the employee from rendering ....
Point of Law : Question of back wages would be considered only if the authorities have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and the empl....
The court upheld the authority's discretion to continue suspension in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for further proceedings.
Suspended employees are entitled to subsistence allowance as a matter of right, and proper disciplinary proceedings must be initiated post-conviction under Rule 17(c).
An employee, aware of the revocation of suspension, who refuses to report for duty is not entitled to benefits under the relevant Rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
