Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
N.Veeraiah – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners sought restoration to their posts. (Para 1) |
| 2. the absence of a hearing violated due process. (Para 2) |
| 3. court remits matter for fresh consideration. (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petitions allowed. (Para 4) |
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:
“To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.01/2026 TNCB(1) dated 30.01.2026 passed by the 5th respondent and Na.Ka.17/2019/AA1 dated 04.06.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to restore the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager in view of the orders dated 14.03.2024 and 21.11.2024 (with effect from 01.07.2024) passed by the 5th respondent. ”
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 fairly submitted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forth his case.
3. Considering the fact that the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without providing him with all the releva
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
