A.Gunasekaran Vs The General Manager

A.Gunasekaran vs The General Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 29, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1416475

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1416475
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: WP/2335/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.Gunasekaran

Respondent

The General Manager

Excerpt

.....of the 2nd respondent.2.the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is employed as a conductor in the respondent corporation and was placed under suspension on 22.11.2022 on the allegation that he received a bribe amount of rs.5,000/-. whileso, the 1st respondent, by taking into account of certain facts involved in the issue, by his proceedings dated 14.11.2025, revoked the suspension of the petitioner with effect from 15.11.2025, and specifically directed the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner into duty and report compliance. pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared in person before the 2nd respondent to report for duty, however, the 2nd respondent neither page2 of 4allotted any work to the petitioner nor submitted a compliance report to the 1 st respondent, as directed. hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.11.2025 to the 2nd respondent seeking allotment of work. however, till date, the petitioner has not been allotted any work by the 2 nd respondent. though the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and assigned work as a matter of right, subject to departmental proceedings, the 2nd respondent cannot keep the petitioner in a state of uncertainty without posting or work, which is impermissible in law, that too even after explicit direction from the 1 st respondent. hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.3. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be adirection to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to implement the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 4.with the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. no costs. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no uma page3 of 4m.dhandapani, j.uma to (tnstc)-salem, salem-7. page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI A.Gunasekaran S/o.S.Angamuthu Door No.2/25, Kolkaran Valavu, Kamatchi Amman Temple, Amaram Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem-636 451. ..Petitioner(s) Vs (TNSTC)-Salem, Salem-7. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith to consider and comply with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2025 in Ku.No. Page1 of 4 33-6666 - D6- THAAPOKA (SA) -2022, revoke the continued effect of suspension, and allot suitable work to the petitioner in the office of the 2nd respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.U.Pressanna For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Raja

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to forthwith consider and comply with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2025 in Ku.No. 33-6666 - D6- THAAPOKA (SA) -2022, revoke the continued effect of suspension, and allot suitable work to the petitioner in the office of the 2nd respondent.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is employed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation and was placed under suspension on 22.11.2022 on the allegation that he received a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. Whileso, the 1st respondent, by taking into account of certain facts involved in the issue, by his proceedings dated 14.11.2025, revoked the suspension of the petitioner with effect from 15.11.2025, and specifically directed the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner into duty and report compliance. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared in person before the 2nd respondent to report for duty, however, the 2nd respondent neither Page2 of 4

allotted any work to the petitioner nor submitted a compliance report to the 1 st respondent, as directed. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.11.2025 to the 2nd respondent seeking allotment of work. However, till date, the petitioner has not been allotted any work by the 2 nd respondent. Though the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and assigned work as a matter of right, subject to departmental proceedings, the 2nd respondent cannot keep the petitioner in a state of uncertainty without posting or work, which is impermissible in law, that too even after explicit direction from the 1 st respondent. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a

direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to implement the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.11.2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 4.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No UMA Page3 of 4

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

UMA To (TNSTC)-Salem, Salem-7. Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties A.Gunasekaran vs The General Manager Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani