Madras High Court
C.Ravi vs The Commissioner Of Revenue ... on 23 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
C.Ravi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Commissioner,
Virudhunagar Municipality,
Virudhunagar.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein
to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated
06.05.2016 given to revoke the suspension order, in the light of the
decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (2) Scale Page 432 and
as per the Government Circular issued in Letter No.13519/N/2015-1,
dated 23.07.2015 within a stipulated time.
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mrs.M.Padmavathy
for Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation,
dated 06.05.2016, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 2015 (2) Scale Page 432 and as per the Government
Circular issued in Letter No.13519/N/2015-1, dated 23.07.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Revenue
Assistant on 09.08.2011. While he was in service, a case in Crime No.12
of 2012 was registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act,
based on the complaint given by one Kumaran and the allegation against
the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the de-facto
complainant and during the trap, he was arrested by the Vigilance and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
Anti-Corruption Detachment. Thereafter, the Commissioner,
Virudhunagar Municipality has placed the petitioner under suspension
and till date the suspension order was not revoked. Hence, the petitioner
has made a representation to the first respondent on 06.05.2016. But till
date no order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that though the petitioner was suspended from service on 04.12.2012, on
the ground that he demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/-, till date there is no
progress. He would further submit that the petitioner has rendered
unblemished service and he has been falsely implicated in the criminal
case and he has not committed any offence. He would also submit that
the very same issue was already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ajaykumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 and hence, he seeks direction to the first
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2016
and to revoke the suspension order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
5. This Court is unable to go into the merits of the allegations
made by the petitioner. So long as the power of suspension is available
with the second respondent and it has been exercised by the competent
authority, this Court cannot go behind the order of suspension.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1990 (3)
SCC 60 (Director General and Inspector General of Police,
AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad and others Vs. K.Ratnagiri) has held in
Paragraph No.7 as follows:
"7....The Rule 13(1) empowers the authority to keep
the
respondent under suspension pending
investigation or
enquiry into the criminal charges where such
suspension is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
necessary in the public interest. When the first
information
report is issued, the investigation commences and
indeed it
has commenced when the respondent was kept
under
suspension. The order of suspension cannot,
therefore, be
said to be beyond the scope of Rule 13(1) merely
because it
has used the word 'prosecution' instead of
investigation into
the charges against the respondent. A wrong
wording in the
order does not take away the power if it is
otherwise
available. The Tribunal seems to have ignored this
well
accepted principle."
7. Further, it was observed in Paragraph No.3 as follows:
"3....The government may review the case and make further
or other order but the order of suspension will continue to
operate till it is rescinded by an appropriate authority."
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
8. Once again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision
reported in 1994 (2) SCC 617 (State of Haryana Vs. Hari Ram Yadav
and others) held in Paragraph No.10 as follows:
"10....The law is well settled that in cases where
the
exercise of statutory power is subject to the
fulfilment of a
condition then the recital about the said condition
having
been fulfilled in the order raises a presumption
about the
fulfilment of the said condition, and the burden is
on the
person who challenges the validity of the order to
show that
the said condition was not fulfilled. In a case,
where the
order does not contain a recital about the condition
being
fulfilled, the burden to prove that the condition was
fulfilled
would be on the authority passing the order if the
validity of
the order is challenged on the ground that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
condition is
not fulfilled...."
9. Further, in Paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it was observed as
follows:
"11....There is no averment in the said petition
challenging the validity of the impugned order of
suspension on the ground that the Governor of
Haryana was not satisfied that it was either necessary
or desirable to place Respondent 1 under suspension.
In the absence of any such averment it must be held
that the impugned order was passed after fulfilling
the requirement of Rule 3(1) of the Rules in view of
the presumption as to the regularity of official acts
which would be applicable and the absence of a
recital in the order about the Governor being satisfied
that it was either necessary or desirable to place
respondent 1 under suspension is of no
consequence...."
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek a
review of the order of suspension by making a fresh representation
before the competent authorities and if any such representation is made,
it is needless to state that the authorities will consider the said
representation and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. No
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.02.2021
akv
To
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Commissioner,
Virudhunagar Municipality,
Virudhunagar.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
W.P.(MD)No.10295 of 2016
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
