Madras High Court

S.Veluchamy vs The Director General Of Police (L & ... on 1 July, 2021

                                                                       W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 01.07.2021
                                                   CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                           W.P.(MD)No.10861 of 2021

                                                         and
                                       W.M.P(MD)Nos.8485 & 8486 of 2021


                     S.Veluchamy                               ... Petitioner

                                                   Vs.

                     1.The Director General of Police (L & O),
                       Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
                       Mylapore,
                       Chennai-600 004.

                     2.The Inspector General of Police,
                       Central Zone,
                       Tiruchirappalli.

                     3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
                       Trichy Range,
                       Tiruchirappalli.

                     4.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Karur District,
                       Karur.                                    ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
                     of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     records relating to the order of suspension made by the third


                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

                     respondent in R.O.43/2020 C.No.E-B2/11/2020, dated 29.02.2020
                     and the consequential order of suspension passed by the fourth
                     respondent            in   T.O.No.115/2020    C.No.A4/3993/2020,       dated
                     10.03.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
                     reinstate the petitioner into the service with all service benefits
                     including monetary benefits.


                                        For Petitioner   : Mr.M.Muthappan
                                        For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
                                                          Government Advocate


                                                          ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash

the order of suspension passed by the third respondent in R.O.

43/2020 C.No.E-B2/11/2020, dated 29.02.2020, and the

consequential order of suspension passed by the fourth respondent

in T.O.No.115/2020 C.No.A4/3993/2020, dated 10.03.2020 and

direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service

with all service benefits including monetary benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

and perused the entire materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

3. According to the petitioner, while he was working as

Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, on

16.02.2020 at about 14.15 hours, there was an accident and he

registered a case in Cr.No.39 of 2020 for the offences under

Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. On 17.02.2020, another case

in Cr.No.41 of 2020 for the offences under Section 379 of IPC was

registered by the petitioner for theft of lorry. One Abishek Maran,

who is the owner of the vehicle involved in Cr.No.39 of 2020, has

given a complaint against the petitioner before the Vigilance and

Anti Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a sum

of Rs.10,000/- and Senthilkumar, Head Constable, demanded

Rs.5,000/- for sending the vehicle for Inspection. Based on the

said complaint, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department

arranged for a trap and arrested Senthilkumar, who had demanded

and accepted the bribe. First Information Report was registered in

Cr.No.1 of 2020 under the Prevention of Corruption Act showing

the petitioner as first accused. The third respondent, vide

proceedings, dated 29.02.2020 suspended the petitioner from

service. Consequently, the fourth respondent also issued an order

of suspension in T.O.No.115/2020 C.No.A4/3993/2020, dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

10.03.2020. There was no departmental proceedings initiated

against the petitioner. Seeking to review the order of suspension,

the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 20.10.2020, but the

same has not been considered so far. Hence, the petitioner has

come forward with this writ petition.

4. From the above materials, it is seen that the petitioner

was suspended from service with effect from 29.02.2020 in view of

the criminal case registered against him. Subsequently, order of

suspension was not reviewed and order of suspension was not

extended. According to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings

initiated against him and no charge sheet is filed in the criminal

case. The respondents did not consider the representations of the

petitioner, dated 20.06.2020, 04.09.2020, 23.10.2020 and

04.01.2021 for revocation of suspension. This Court and the

Hon'ble Apex Court have deprecated the practice of keeping an

employee under protracted suspension for a long period.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary

Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 has held that if

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

any suspension order is issued, the authorities competent must

ensure that if any proceedings has been initiated against the

suspended employee and the same must be concluded within a

reasonable period of time without causing any undue delay. If

employer decides to continue the suspension, they must record

reasons for the same. In the present case, the order of suspension

is not revoked even after a lapse of 1 ½ years. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the judgment referred to above has held that when an

employee is suspended pending criminal case or departmental

proceedings, charge sheet or charge memo must be served on the

employee within three months. If charge sheet or charge memo is

not served within three months, the order of suspension has to be

revoked. If charge sheet or charge memo is served on the

employee, the remedy available to the employee is to give a

representation to the employer, who has to consider the same and

pass order either revoking the order of suspension or continuing

the suspension. The said order is subject to judicial review. The

relevant portion of said judgment in Paragraphs 21 and 22 are

extracted herein:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.

22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.''

The ratio in the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts

of the present case.

6. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to

consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 20.06.2020,

04.09.2020, 23.10.2020 and 04.01.2021 in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary

Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, and pass

orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.10861/2021

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are