U.Singaravelan vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 13425 Mad

                                                                               W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 07.07..2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                               W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021



                     U.Singaravelan                                                ... Petitioner
                                                             vs.
                     The District Collector,
                     Ramanathapuram District,
                     Ramanathapuram.                                               ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     records of the respondent i.e., the District Collector, Ramanathapuram in
                     his Memo No.A5/38467/2020 dated 05.11.2020 and quash the same and
                     consequently direct the respondent i.e., the District Collector,
                     Ramanathapuram to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith.

                                     For Petitioner       : Mr.S.Visvalingam

                                     For Respondent       : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
                                                            Government Advocate.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/6
                                                                              W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

                                                         ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of

the respondent dated 05.11.2020 and for a consequential direction to the

respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith.

2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Driver in

the office of the Sub Collector, Ramanathapuram, placed under

suspension, by the respondent on 05.11.2020, in view of the registration

of the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2020. The petitioner was remanded to

judicial custody on 04.11.2020. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail on

16.12.2020 by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13713 of 2020. The

respondent has not commenced any domestic enquiry and in criminal

case, no charge-sheet is filed. The respondent has not revived the order

of suspension from 05.11.2020. Hence, the petitioner has made a

representation dated 03.03.2021 to the respondent for revocation of

suspension. However, till date no order has been passed. Hence, the

petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the

materials on record carefully.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

4. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the

petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2020 in Crime No.5 of 2020, for the

offence under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)

Act, 2018 and thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. The respondent by

proceedings dated 05.11.2020, suspended the petitioner from service, in

view of the registration of criminal case and arrest of the petitioner. Till

date, no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and no charge sheet

has been filed in Crime No.5 of 2020. The issue of revocation of

suspension was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in

Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC

291. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a delinquent employee is

suspended from service pending criminal case or disciplinary

proceedings, if charge sheet is not filed or charge memo is not served on

the delinquent, then suspension order must be revoked. When the charge

sheet is filed in criminal case or charge memo is served on the

delinquent, the remedy available to the delinquent is to make a

representation for revocation of suspension. On receipt of such

representation, the concerned authority shall consider the representation

of the delinquent and pass orders for revocation of suspension or

rejecting the representation. Such order is subject to judicial review. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

relevant portions of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court read 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

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.''

5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner

dated 03.03.2021 and pass orders either revoking the order of suspension

or rejecting the representation of the petitioner by giving valid reasons.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                     vsm                                                             07.07..2021
                     Index : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes / No

                     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

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

vsm

W.P(MD)No.11045 of 2021

07.07..2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/