Madras High Court
Muniappasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.5838 of 2016
Muniappasamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the
impugned order of suspension of the respondent made in No.Roc.No.
1883/2014/A1, dated 20.03.2014 by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganantham
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of
suspension passed by the respondent, dated 20.03.2014 and to quash the
same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as
Village Administrative Officer, Nakkalapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk,
he was placed under suspension, by virtue of the impugned order passed
by the respondent, dated 20.03.2014, on the ground that he demanded a
sum of Rs.1,000/- from one Perumal for recommending to grant Patta in
his name. Thereafter, the petitioner orally requested the respondent for
revocation of suspension. But the same was rejected. Hence, 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 20.03.2014, 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
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 to quash the
order of suspension.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent 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 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
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
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
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."
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
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
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...."
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
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
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.02.2021
akv
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
W.P.(MD)No.6781 of 2016
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
