Madras High Court
K.Kalanjiarani vs The Principal ... on 9 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
K.Kalanjiarani ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Treasuries
and Accounts,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
3rd Floor, Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
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
second respondent ie., the Treasury Officer, Ramanathapuram in his
impugned memo No.8465/2021/A2, dated 18.03.2021 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into
service forthwith.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the
impugned memo, dated 18.03.2021, passed by the second respondent and
to direct the respondents to reinstate her into service forthwith.
2.According to the petitioner, while she was working as Accountant in
the second respondent Office placed under suspension on 20.11.2020, as
per the proceedings of the second respondent, based on the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption case registered against her in F.I.R.No.7 of 2020, dated
19.11.2020. However, no charge sheet has been filed and no disciplinary
proceeding has been initiated till date. Hence, the petitioner has made a
representation on 10.03.2021, seeking to revoke the suspension order and
also reinstatement into service. The second respondent, by the impugned
order, dated 18.03.2021, rejected the request of the petitioner. Challenging
the same, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving bribe in
the trap laid by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.
The petitioner was arrested and criminal case was registered against her. In
view of the same, the petitioner was suspended from service pending
criminal case in the public interest and in contemplation of disciplinary
proceeding with regard to grave misconduct of the petitioner. In view of the
pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner's request for revocation of
suspension was rejected. There is no error in the said order and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4.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.
5.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner
was arrested by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on 19.11.2020
while receiving bribe. FIR was registered against her. The petitioner was
suspended from service, by an order, dated 20.11.2020. The petitioner gave
a representation, dated 10.03.2021, for revocation of suspension. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
representation was rejected stating that the decision will be taken for
revocation of suspension only depending on the outcome of the criminal
case. The reason given by the second respondent is not valid. It is the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that till today,
charge-memo in the disciplinary proceeding and the charge-sheet in the
criminal case is not served on the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Judgment reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.
Union of India and another] held that when a delinquent employee given
representation for revocation of suspension, the employer must give valid
reason, if the said representation is rejected and suspension is continued. In
the impugned order, it is not the case of the second respondent that the
petitioner will influence the witness, tamper with the documents and stall
the progress of the criminal case. The reason given by the second
respondent for rejecting the representation is not valid. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Judgment reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another] held in paragraph No.22, as
follows:-
“22.So far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
the Appellant has now been served with a Charge-sheet, and,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
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.”
6.The disposal of the criminal case may be delayed for number of
years and keeping a delinquent employee under suspension for a long time
is deprecated by this Court and the Honourable Apex Court in number of
cases. Paying subsistence allowance without extracting work will cause
financial loss to the Department.
7.In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 18.03.2021 passed
by the second respondent is liable to be set aside, as the reason given by
the second respondent is not valid and hereby set aside. The petitioner is
under suspension from 20.11.2020, pending criminal case and in
contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Till date, no charge-sheet is filed
and no charge-memo is served on the petitioner. Applying the said ratio of
the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another], the order of suspension is
set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
If the respondents are of the view that the petitioner will tamper with
documents and influence the witness, it is open to the respondents to
transfer the petitioner to some other place.
8.With the above directions, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs.
09.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
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.10073 of 2021
To
1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Treasuries
and Accounts,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
3rd Floor, Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.10073 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
