COURT RELIEF
HC asks govt to reinstate staff accused of swindling money
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Madurai:01.01.2020
Setting aside the dismissal order of a sales woman of a cooperative society, Madras high court directed to authorities concerned to reinstate the petitioner who was dismissed on charges of misappropriation of money, citing that the co-delinquent in the case was reinstated back in service based on the earlier order of this court.
The petitioner Jeyachitra along with another woman Sheela Devi were working as sales women at the Pullampadi primary agricultural cooperative credit society limited at Trichy.
The petitioner and Sheela were placed under suspension as they were involved in misappropriation of money from the cooperative society and a criminal case was also registered against them in the year 2016.
Following these charges, the president of the imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year to the duo. After remitting back the amount which was misappropriated, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities concerned seeking to revoke her suspension, however, an order dated June 16 2017 was passed dismissing her from service. In the meantime, the petitioner and Sheela were acquitted from the criminal case by a lower court.
On perusal of the submissions made on either side, Justice M S Ramesh observed since the co-delinquent Sheela was reinstated back in service by the earlier order of this court in the year 2018, the same decision would also squarely apply to the petitioner.
“There is yet another aspect to the present case in hand. Originally the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of one year and subsequently, the order of dismissal was passed. A perusal of the dismissal order does not reveal the fact that the earlier punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year was recalled or set aside. Without doing so, the petitioner cannot be subjected to two punishments and the same is illegal,” observed the judge.
Hence, the judge set aside the dismissal order and directed the authorities concerned to reinstate the petitioner to service with all consequential and monetary benefits.
HC asks govt to reinstate staff accused of swindling money
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Madurai:01.01.2020
Setting aside the dismissal order of a sales woman of a cooperative society, Madras high court directed to authorities concerned to reinstate the petitioner who was dismissed on charges of misappropriation of money, citing that the co-delinquent in the case was reinstated back in service based on the earlier order of this court.
The petitioner Jeyachitra along with another woman Sheela Devi were working as sales women at the Pullampadi primary agricultural cooperative credit society limited at Trichy.
The petitioner and Sheela were placed under suspension as they were involved in misappropriation of money from the cooperative society and a criminal case was also registered against them in the year 2016.
Following these charges, the president of the imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year to the duo. After remitting back the amount which was misappropriated, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities concerned seeking to revoke her suspension, however, an order dated June 16 2017 was passed dismissing her from service. In the meantime, the petitioner and Sheela were acquitted from the criminal case by a lower court.
On perusal of the submissions made on either side, Justice M S Ramesh observed since the co-delinquent Sheela was reinstated back in service by the earlier order of this court in the year 2018, the same decision would also squarely apply to the petitioner.
“There is yet another aspect to the present case in hand. Originally the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of one year and subsequently, the order of dismissal was passed. A perusal of the dismissal order does not reveal the fact that the earlier punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year was recalled or set aside. Without doing so, the petitioner cannot be subjected to two punishments and the same is illegal,” observed the judge.
Hence, the judge set aside the dismissal order and directed the authorities concerned to reinstate the petitioner to service with all consequential and monetary benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment