Madras High Court
K.Saraladevi vs The Joint ... on 1 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)No.12895 of 2020
K.Saraladevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar-cum-Managing Director,
Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramnad District.
2.The Deputy Registrar (Co-operative)
Office of the Deputy Registrar (Co-operative),
Ramanathapuram Circle,
Ramanathapuram. ... 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 pertaining to impugned order of suspension issued by the
first respondent in his proceedings in Na Ka No.001267/2020 E1,
dated 20.10.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner
and pay all monetary benefits.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For R2 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order of suspension,
dated 20.10.2020, passed by the first respondent.
3. From the averments made in the affidavit and the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is
seen that the petitioner is challenging the order of suspension on
merits. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the charges mentioned in the order of suspension are
not valid for suspending the petitioner from service. It is the
further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that prolonged suspension without assigning any reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
is contrary to judgment of this Court as well as judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit denying
various averments made in the affidavit. In addition to that, the
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further
submitted that the chargememo, dated 02.12.2020, was issued
based on the inspection report, dated 22.07.2019 and directed the
petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner did not submit
any explanation.
5. The issue of revocation of suspension of an employee is
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary
Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in paragraphs- 21 and 22 of the judgment held as
follows:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
suspension in any manner known to law, and this action
of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.''
6. In the judgment referred to above, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that when an employee is suspended from service pending
criminal case or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, the
suspension order cannot be extended beyond three months. If
chargesheet or chargememo is not served on the delinquent
employee within three months from the date of suspension, the
suspension has to be revoked. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also
held that if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on
the delinquent employee, an order by giving valid reason, must be
passed for extension of suspension. In the present case, no charge-
sheet is filed in the criminal case but chargememo is issued to the
petitioner. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred
to above, when a chargememo is served on the delinquent
employee, the delinquent employee can give a representation for
revocation of suspension. The employer has to consider the said
representation and if he decides to continue the suspension, then a
reasoned order must be passed. The said order is subject to judicial
review. The order of suspension must be reviewed periodically and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
to continue the suspension, reason must be given by the employer.
When a delinquent employee submits the representation for
revocation of suspension, the employer must consider the same and
pass order either revoking the suspension or continuing the
suspension. In the present case, the respondents have not
reviewed the order of suspension from the date of suspension ie.,
on 20.10.2020 and has not given any reason for continuing the
suspension for prolonged period.
7. The respondents are continuing the suspension of the
petitioner without passing any reasoned orders. The learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first
respondent is paying the subsistence allowance regularly to the
petitioner. The first respondent without extracting any work from
the petitioner is paying subsistance allowance for prolonged period
which causes financial loss to the respondents Bank.
8 In view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, the impugned order of
suspension is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner to some other
place so that, the petitioner will not be in a position to tamper with
documents or obstruct the disciplinary proceedings pending
against him. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with
respondents in conducting and concluding disciplinary
proceedings.
9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
To
1.The Joint Registrar-cum-Managing Director,
Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramnad District.
2.The Deputy Registrar (Co-operative)
Office of the Deputy Registrar (Co-operative),
Ramanathapuram Circle,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2020
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
