WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.503 of 2022 The Management, SP.SPL.134, Matthinyakkanpatti, Primari Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kulloor Sandhai, Virudhunagar District. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. 2.D.Vadivel ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in TNSE.No.1 of 2016, dated 17.12.2021 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar, No.1 Special Government Pleader 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 ORDER The petitioner bank has filed this writ petition as against the orders passed by the 1st respondent authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The 2nd respondent has filed an application before the 1st respondent challenging the order passed by the petitioner bank dated 22.06.2009, by which the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. The 1st respondent has allowed the application by order dated 17.12.2021. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner management has filed this writ petition. 2.When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner on 27.10.2025 and 29.10.2025. Therefore, this court by earlier order dated 29.10.2025 directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the petitioner bank and to proceed with the case. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner management has appeared and submitted that the 2nd respondent has committed misappropriation and he has also admitted the same by way of letter before the enquiry officer. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 3.The grievance of the 2nd respondent is that he was in charge of three fair price shops at a time and there was some shortage in the stock, and he has also paid the cost of the shortage goods. However, he was issued with a charge memo, he was placed under suspension and later on he was dismissed from service, without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the authority has allowed the application. 4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record. 5.Though the petitioner has contended that the 2nd respondent had admitted the guilt, no document was placed by the petitioner management before the 1st respondent. The enquiry report was also not placed before the 1st respondent and therefore, the 1st respondent allowed the application as under: “6/ ,t;tHf;F rk;ge;jkhd tprhuiz 06/10/2021 md;W eilbgw;w nghJ ,Ujug;gpYk; rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fs; ,y;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;L thJiuf;fhf tHf;F 20/0/2021 md;W xj;jp itf;fg;gl;lJ/ md;iwa jpdk; eilbgw;w 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 tprhuizapd;nghJ vjph;kDjhuh; - eph;thf jug;gpy; M$uhfhjyhy;. Twpf;bfhs;s thJiuapy; VJkpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ” 7/1947k; tUl jkpH;ehL filfs; kw;Wk; epWtd';fs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 41(1)y; “No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however, that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose. ” vd cs;sJ/ nkw;fz;l rl;lg;gphptpd; goa[k;. vd; Kd;dh; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l eph;thfj; jug;g[ gjpYiuapd; mog;gilapYk; ghprPyid bra;ifapy;. nky;KiwaPl;L kDjhuh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L jpUg;jpfukhd rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; nky;KiwaPl;L vjph;kDjhuh; - eph;thfj;jpduhy; Kd;dplg;gltpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;J md;dhUf;F vjpuhf 22/06/2009k; Mk; njjpapy; nky;KiwaPl;L vjph;kDjhuuhy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l gzpePf;f cj;juit uj;J bra;J ,jd; K:yk; cj;jutpLfpnwd;/” 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 6.This court considering the manner in which the petitioner management has defended the application of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent, cannot find fault with the order of the 1st respondent. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.11.2025 DSK To The Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 B.PUGALENDHI.J., DSK WP(MD)No.625 of 2022 17.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis