Madras High Court
A.Syed Mohamed vs The Director General on 14 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6270, 6271 & 6273 of 2020
A.Syed Mohamed ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director General,
Highways Department,
76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director (H),
Highways Research Station,
Regional Laboratory,
Madurai. ... 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
relating to the proceedings No.2002/Con.3(2)/2019, dated 09.07.2019 and
proceedings Order No.2002/Kamukam 3(2)/2019, dated 20.03.2020 and
quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the first respondent
herein to reinstate the petitioner in post of Assistant Engineer in Highways
Department with all monetary benefits.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the
proceedings No.2002/Con.3(2)/2019, dated 09.07.2019 and proceedings
Order No.2002/Kamukam 3(2)/2019, dated 20.03.2020 and to direct the
first respondent to reinstate him in post of Assistant Engineer in Highways
Department with all monetary benefits.
2.According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer,
Traffic Laboratory, Chennai, on 10.03.2016 and transferred to the second
respondent Office on 09.06.2018. While so, the petitioner married one
Aafrin Fathima on 11.11.2018. Based on the complaint given by the father-
in-law of the petitioner, due to family dispute, the petitioner was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2019 and a case has been
registered in Crime No.244 of 2019. In order to wreak vengeance, the
petitioner's father-in-law informed the arrest of the petitioner to the
superior officers of the petitioner. Subsequently, the first respondent, by
proceedings, dated 09.07.2019, placed the petitioner under suspension. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
petitioner gave a representation to the respondents to revoke his
suspension. Since no order has been passed, the petitioner filed a Writ
Petition in W.P(MD)No.2920 of 2020 and this Court, by an order, dated
14.02.2020, directed the first respondent therein to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 16.10.2019. While so, the first
respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2020, passed the impugned order
stating that suspension could not be revoked for the reason that the
petitioner was kept under judicial custody for a criminal case and the said
criminal case is pending. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up
with the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
criminal case registered against the petitioner is due to dispute with his wife
and her family members. The long period of suspension is causing mental
agony to the petitioner and casting social stigma on him and prayed for
allowing the Writ Petition.
4.The respondents filed counter-affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that due to family dispute, the petitioner was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2019 and orders of suspension and
extension of the same were based on the gravity of the charges against the
petitioner. In the criminal case, trial is in progress and prayed for dismissal
of the Writ Petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6.From the materials available on record, it is seen that while the
petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the second respondent
Office, based on the complaint given by his father-in-law, the petitioner was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2019. Subsequently,
the first respondent, by proceedings, dated 09.07.2019, placed the
petitioner under suspension. The petitioner gave a representation to the
respondents to revoke his suspension. Since no order has been passed, the
petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2920 of 2020 and this Court, by
an order, dated 14.02.2020, directed the first respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner, dated 16.10.2019. The first respondent, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
proceedings dated 20.03.2020, passed the impugned order stating that
suspension cannot be revoked for the reason that the petitioner was kept
under judicial custody for a criminal case and the said criminal case is
pending. 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. The reason given by the first
respondent 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,
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 petitioner is kept under suspension from 09.07.2019. The disposal of
the criminal case may be delayed for number of years and keeping a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
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.The criminal case registered against the petitioner relates to family
dispute based on the complaint given by father-in-law of the petitioner. The
criminal case registered against the petitioner has nothing to do with
discharge of his official duty.
8.Considering the above facts, the petitioner is kept under suspension
from 09.07.2019 and the reason given by the first respondent for rejecting
the representation of the petitioner is not valid, the impugned orders, dated
09.07.2019 and 20.03.2020 passed by the first respondent are liable to be
set aside and hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner into 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.6864 of 2020
9.With the above directions, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
14.07.2021
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.
To
1.The Director General,
Highways Department,
76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director (H),
Highways Research Station,
Regional Laboratory,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.6864 of 2020
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
