Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Supervisor in Retail Vending Shop No.8122, TASMAC., in the year 2004. On 11.02.2017, the third respondent has suspended the petitioner from service, on the ground that he has been working as a Computer Teaching Faculty in Mannar Saraboji Government College (Autonomous), while he was working as a Supervisor in the TASMAC also. The third respondent has issued a charge memo against the petitioner on 09.03.2017. The petitioner has given a detailed explanation denying all the allegations against him on 20.03.2017. However, the third respondent by proceedings dated 31.07.2017, dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 16.10.2017, before the second respondent and the second respondent has dismissed the appeal on 19.12.2017. Thereafter, he has preferred a revision before the first respondent on 05.01.2018 and the same was also dismissed on 08.03.2018. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Salesman in the TASMAC Shop run by the third respondent. The appointment of the petitioner was made only on temporary basis and the allegation made against the petitioner is that he engaged dual employment in two institutions simultaneously and the same was also not denied by the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted that he employed in the TASMAC Shop as Supervisor as well as in Mannar Saraboji Government College as Computer Teaching Faculty.