Madras High Court
Jeeva vs The District Collector on 22 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9227 and 9229 of 2021
Jeeva ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent
in her proceedings Roc.A2/2871/2020 dated 14.02.2020 and
consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/2871/2020, dated
09.06.2021 and quash the same as illegal and to direct the 2 nd
respondent to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Venkata Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order, dated
14.02.2020 passed by the second respondent in Roc.A2/2871/2020
and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/2871/2020 dated
09.06.2021 and for a direction to the second respondent to
reinstate the petitioner along with back wages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior
Assistant in the Taluk Office, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District, on
16.07.2003. Subsequently, he was promoted as Revenue Inspector
at Sakkottai Taluk Office, Sivagangai District, on 08.10.2018. On
13.02.2020, due to previous motive, one Subbu preferred a false
complaint against the petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, stating that the petitioner demanded
him a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe for issuance of an income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
certificate. Hence, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
and Anti Corruption, Sivagangai, registered a case against the
petitioner in Crime No.1 of 2020 under Section 7(a) of Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2020. Due to
registration of F.I.R, the second respondent issued suspension
order on 14.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on
bail, by this Court on 15.04.2020. The petitioner gave a
representation on 14.05.2020 to the first respondent, seeking to
revoke his suspension. But the same was not considered by the
first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.19642
of 2020, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent
dated 14.02.2020 and for consequential direction to the second
respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. This Court, by
order dated, 23.12.2020, directed the petitioner to give a
representation to the second respondent and also directed the
second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner
within a period of eight weeks. Therefore, the petitioner gave a
representation on 06.01.2021, along with the order of copy of the
above said writ petition to the second respondent. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
second respondent, without considering the order of this Court,
simply rejected the said representation on 09.06.2021, on the
ground that criminal case registered against the petitioner is
pending. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ
Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that till date, no charge memo was issued and no charge sheet was
filed in Crime No.1 of 2020. The respondent has also not revived
the order of suspension. The petitioner is kept under suspension
for a long period and prayed for setting aside the order of
suspension. Keeping an employee under suspension for a long time
and paying subsistence allowance causes financial loss to the
respondent Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that keeping an employee under suspension for
indefinite long period, is deprecated by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of
India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
and perused the materials available on record.
5. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the
petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2020 in Crime No.1 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 14.02.2020, 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
was filed in Crime No.1 of 2020. Therefore, the petitioner gave a
representation on 14.05.2020. Since the same was not considered,
the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.19642 of 2020.
This Court by order dated 23.12.2020, directed the second
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and
pass orders within eight weeks. Hence, the petitioner gave a fresh
representation on 06.01.2021, to the second respondent along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
a copy of the said order. However, the the second respondent
rejected the representation of the petitioner citing the pendency of
the criminal case. The issue of consideration of suspension of
delinquent employee and revocation was considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and
another reported in 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases 291. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, held that
when an employee was suspended from service in contemplation of
domestic enquiry or pending criminal case, charge memo must be
served within three months from the date of suspension or charge-
sheet must be served on her within three months. If employer fails
to serve the charge memo within three months, the order of
suspension has to be revoked. If charge sheet/charge memo is
served, it is open to the delinquent employee to make a
representation to the employer for revocation of suspension. Any
order passed by the employer on the representation is subject to
judicial review. When the employer rejects the request for
revocation, valid reasons must be given. It is well settled that long
period of suspension is not a ground for revocation of suspension.
At the same time, it is also held that protracting the period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
suspension is not advisable, as it will cause financial loss to the
Government and also cause mental agony and hardship to the
delinquent employee.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary' case
at paragraphs- 21 and 22, held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
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 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.''
7. It has also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
Department is free to transfer the concerned person to any
Department in any of its offices so as to sever any local or personal
contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing
the trial of the criminal case and disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him. In the present case, though the petitioner was
suspended on 14.02.2020, the respondents have not revoked the
order of suspension subsequently. Even after rejecting his request
by impugned order dated 09.06.2021, the respondents have not
reviewed the order of suspension of the petitioner till date. As per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
the judgment of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court especially,
as per the ratio in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay
Kumar Choudhary' case [Supra] the suspension of the petitioner
is liable to be revoked.
8. For the above reasons, the impugned order dated
14.02.2020 and the consequential impugned order dated
09.06.2021 passed by the second respondent are set aside. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is
open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner to some other
place and posting him in an insignificant post.
9. Accordingly this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 22.07.2021
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11741/2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
am
To
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
W.P.(MD)No.11741 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9227 and 9229 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
