Madras High Court
R.Swaminathan vs The District Collector on 22 July, 2021
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
R.Swaminathan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Personal Assistant to
The District Collector Kancheepuram,
Social Nutritious Meal Programme,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Commissioner,
Department of Social Welfare &
Nutritious Meal Programme,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5.The Zonal Officer,
Zone 12, Corporation of Chennai,
No.1, New Street, Alandur,
Chennai. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records
connected with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.7446/12/SaVuThi/PaOE1 dated 21.05.2020 and quash the same
as illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and further direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
respondents to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner from
01.08.2012, till the date of superannuation into service as duty period
with all service as well as monetary benefits within a period fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muruganantham
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
Mr.M.Ganesan for R5
O RD E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No.7446.12/SaVuThi/PaOE1 dated 21.05.2020 and quash the
same as illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents
to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.08.2012, till the date
of reinstatement into service as duty period with all service as well as monetary
benefits within a period fixed by this Court.
2.The petitioner joined in service as Noon meal organiser in Government High
School, Alanthur Municipality, Kancheepuram District in the year 1991. A criminal
case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2012. The petitioner was
arrested by the Inspector of Police, CSCID, Chennai, for offences under Section 6(4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regularization of Distribution by Card
System) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and 248(1) of
Cr.P.C., 1972. Pursuant to the registration of criminal case, the petitioner was
suspended from service by an order of the 2nd respondent w.e.f. 01.08.2012. The
order was also subsequently extended by the 2nd respondent.
3.It is admitted that the criminal case registered against the petitioner ended
in acquittal by judgment in C.C.No.137 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Kanchipuram, dated 31.05.2018. Even after the order in criminal case,
acquitting the petitioner from the criminal charges, the petitioner was not reinstated
despite several representations having been made by the petitioner. Hence, a writ
petition in W.P.No.7022 of 2019 was filed before this Court for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioner and to review the order of suspension. This Court after hearing the case,
passed the following order:
8.In the case on hand, the order of suspension was issued long
back and the writ petitioner is under continuous suspension without
any progress in the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as
the criminal case. This being the factum of the case, this Court is of an
opinion that there is no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
writ petitioner under suspension for further period and accordingly the
following orders are passed:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
(i) The impugned order of suspension passed by the second
respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.7446/12/rcjp/gx1, dated
1.8.2012 is quashed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service.
(iii)The respondents are directed to post the writ petitioner in any
one of the non-sensitive post till the conclusion of the
departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal
case registered against the writ petitioner.
4.Thereafter, the petitioner's representation was considered in the light of the
judgement of this Court in W.P.No.7022 of 2019, dated 27.03.2019 and the order of
suspension was withdrawn by proceedings dated 27.05.2019.
5.After revocation of order of suspension, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 13.07.2019 to pay salary for the period during which he was
suspended, i.e., from 12.07.2012 to 29.05.019. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was
constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.31542 of 2019 to issue a direction to the
5th respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner. This Court by
an order dated 11.11.2019 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 5 th
respondent to consider the representation dated 13.07.2019, submitted by the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent
passed the impugned order dated 21.05.2020, rejecting the representation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to get salary for the period
during which he did not do any work. However, the period of suspension was
regularized to be treated as leave without salary.
6.The respondents did not file any counter. Going by the sequence of events,
the petitioner was suspended only due to the pendency of a criminal complaint
against him. He was acquitted in the criminal case by a judgement dated
31.05.2018. Though, it is possible for the respondents to initiate disciplinary
proceedings independently despite the verdict of the criminal court, they have not
done that. The order of suspension was thereafter revoked by the 2nd respondent
and the petitioner was reinstated into service w.e.f. 27.05.2019. After reinstatement,
the petitioner submitted the representation to the 5th respondent for disbursement of
salary for the period of suspension. That representation was rejected by the
impugned order only on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to get salary
for the period he did not work. When the petitioner was placed under suspension
only in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency of criminal
proceedings, the order of suspension is legitimate unless the order of suspension is
quashed as unwarranted. If no proceedings are initiated departmentally after placing
an employee under suspension, the order of suspension will be considered invalid
and it cannot be treated as one to have any legal consequences affecting the right of
employee. On the basis of an order of suspension, the petitioner was never allowed
to work. For the period when the petitioner was forced to be away from work by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
respondents, the petitioner cannot be denied salary on any principle. Though the
petitioner did not work during the period of suspension, the situation was brought
and he was compelled not to work by an act which became illegal after the verdict
of criminal court. When the criminal case ended in acquittal, the respondents did not
initiate fresh proceedings departmentally. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the period during which he was
placed under suspension in equity. The judgement in C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file
of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram indicates that its not an
honourable acquittal. For want of proof by the prosecution, the charge against the
petitioner was held not proved. The delay in disposal of the criminal case also may
be a reason for the verdict being given in favour of the petitioner. The sequence of
events indicates that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner was falsely implicated
in the criminal case. However, there is no evidence or allegations of malafides. In
such circumstances, this Court is of the view that some deduction should be made
while directing disbursement of salary to the petitioner for the period during which
he was placed under suspension.
7.This Court is of the view that 75% of the salary for the period of suspension
will be appropriate. Hence the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.05.2020 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to 75% of the salary which the
petitioner would have received for the period from 12.07.2012 to 29.05.2019. The
respondent shall disburse 75% of the regular salary payable for the period to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. In case, the 2nd respondent does not pay salary within a period of one month,
the respondent is liable to be pay interest at 6% for the delayed payment.
8.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.
22.07.2021
Index:Yes
Speaking order
ssr
To
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Personal Assistant to
The District Collector Kancheepuram,
Social Nutritious Meal Programme,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Commissioner,
Department of Social Welfare &
Nutritious Meal Programme,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5.The Zonal Officer,
Zone 12, Corporation of Chennai,
No.1, New Street, Alandur,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
ssr
W.P.No.3432 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
