Madras High Court
Soundari vs The Joint Director Of Agriculture on 5 February, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1659 & 1660 of 2021
Soundari ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
2.The Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Farmers Training Centre,
Kudumiyanmalai,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the 1st
respondent to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Proc.A2/10248/2018,
dated 03.08.2018 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing
the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to re-join as Typist in the light
of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment reported in 2015 3 CTC 119 (Ajay
Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others).
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthu Karuppan
Additional Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner, while serving as Typist in the second respondent's
office, was placed under suspension by the first respondent herein,
through an order dated 03.08.2018, which is impugned in the present writ
petition. The petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2021 seeking for
revocation of his suspension was not considered by the respondents and
hence, the present writ petition.
2. The guidelines governing a Government employee to be kept
under prolonged suspension, has been dealt with the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291
at page 303, in the following manner:-
“21.We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
suspension order should not extend beyond three months if
within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-
sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a
reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free
to transfer the person concerned to any department in any
of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any
local or personal contact that he may have and which he
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him.
The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any
person, or handling records and documents till the stage of
his having to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle
of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall
also preserve the interest of the Government in the
prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution
Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the
grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period of
suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and
would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance
Commission that pending a criminal investigation,
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance
stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
3. The petitioner is aggrieved against his prolonged suspension of
two years. Apparently, the suspension cannot unjustifiably prolonged,
except in accordance with the mandated guidelines as held in the Ajay
Kumar Choudhary's case (supra). In this background, it would be
appropriate for the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s
representation, seeking for revocation of his suspension.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
4.Accordingly, a Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued with a
direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner’s
representation dated 09.01.2021, wherein the petitioner has sought for
revocation of the suspension order passed by the first respondent vide his
proceedings in Proc.A2/10248/2018, dated 03.08.2018, in accordance
with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary (supra), as expeditiously as possible, in any event,
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy this order.
5. The Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
2.The Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Farmers Training Centre,
Kudumiyanmalai,
Pudukottai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
TM
W.P.(MD) No.1942 of 2021
05.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
