V.Venkatesan vs The Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 14045 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14045 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2021

Madras High Court

V.Venkatesan vs The Registrar on 14 July, 2021

                                                            1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



                                              Dated :       14.07.2021


                                                        CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

                                             W.P.No.27449 of 2018
                                           and WMP.No.31966 of 2018

                     V.Venkatesan                                          ... Petitioner

                                                                Vs.

                     The Registrar,
                     Annamalai University,
                     Annamalai Nagar,
                     Chidambaram-608 002,
                     Cuddalore District.                                    ...Respondent


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
                     the records of the respondent dated 01.06.2018 vide Office
                     Memorandum bearing No.S3/8723/2018 and to quash the same in
                     relevance to the judgment of Apex Court dated 16.02.2015 in Ajai
                     Kumar Choudry Vs. Union of India in C.A. No.1912 of 2015 with
                     consequential direction to the respondent to re-instate the petitioner
                     in pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2017
                     into the service of the respondent with all the attendant benefits
                     right from the date of suspension.


                                           For Petitioner       : Mr.R.Tholgapian

                                          For Respondent        :Mr.K.Sathish Kumar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/                                 Standing counsel
                                                              2

                                                     ORDER

The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing

today.

The petitioner, while serving as 'Hospital Worker' in Rajah

Muthiah Medical College Hospital under the respondent University,

was placed under suspension by the respondent herein, through an

order dated 11.05.2016 and the consequential order dated

01.06.2018, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. The

petitioner’s representation dated 01.02.2017 seeking for revocation

of his suspension was not considered by the respondent and hence

the present Writ Petition.

2. The guidelines governing a Government employee to be

kept under prolonged suspension, has been dealt with the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India,

(2015) 7 SCC 291 at page 303, in the following manner:-

“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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/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.”

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against his prolonged

suspension for more than five years. Apparently, the suspension

cannot be unjustifiably prolonged, except in accordance with the

mandated guidelines as held in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary's

case (supra). In this background, it would be appropriate for the

respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, seeking for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

revocation of his suspension.

4.Accordingly, a Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued with a

direction to the respondent herein to consider the petitioner’s

representation dated 01.02.2017, wherein the petitioner has sought

for revocation of the suspension order passed by the respondent

vide his proceedings in University Order No.37/2016 (S3) dated

11.05.2016 and its consequential proceedings of the respondent in

Office Memorandum No.S3/8723/2018 dated 01.06.2018, in

accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), as expeditiously as

possible, in any event, within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a copy this order.

5. The Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.