Madras High Court
M.Balamurugan vs The District Collector on 22 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.14343 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)No.10766 of 2019
and
W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021
M.Balamurugan ... Petitioner
(in both writ petitions)
Vs.
The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
( in both writ petitions)
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019: Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
Impugned Order, dated 11.07.2017 made in R.C.No.A6/27398/17
and Impugned Rejection Order, dated 30.05.2019 in
Na.Ka.A6/27398/17 passed by the respondent and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
in service with consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021: Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation, dated 19.06.2021 to revoke suspension order
issued by the respondent vide his proceedings in
Rc.A6/27392/2017, dated 11.07.2017 within the stipulated time as
fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran
in W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019
Mr.C.Ramesh
in W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
(in both the W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019:-
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order, dated
11.07.2017 made in R.C.No.A6/27398/17 and the impugned
Rejection Order, dated 30.05.2019 in Na.Ka.A6/27398/17 passed by
the respondent and for a direction to the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner in service with consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
both writ petitions and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available
on record.
3. The petitioner while working as Tahsildar in Tirunelveli
Taluk, was caught red-handed for receiving the bribe and was
arrested on 10.07.2017. In view of his arrest, he was suspended by
the respondent with effect from 11.07.2017. According to the
petitioner, from that date onwards, he is kept under suspension
without suspension order being renewed or any order passed
extending the order of suspension. Therefore, the petitioner gave
representation and filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21168 of
2018 for a direction to the respondent to revoke the order of
suspension in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another
reported in 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases 291. This Court, by
order dated 10.01.2019, directed the respondent to review the
order of suspension and reconsider the desirability or otherwise of
continuance of suspension and pass a reasoned order within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that
order. On receipt of the order of this Court, dated 10.01.2019, the
respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner citing the
pendency of the criminal case and relying on the letter of the
Government, dated 05.01.1996. Challenging the said order of
rejection and the order of suspension, the petitioner filed writ
petition in W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019. Pending writ petition, again,
the petitioner gave representation to the respondent on
19.06.2021. However, no order was passed, hence, the petitioner
filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021. The rejection of
the respondent is that the criminal case registered against the
petitioner for grave charges for demanding bribe is pending and
the Government has given instructions not to revoke the suspension
when the Government servant is facing the criminal proceedings
for grave charges. The issue of suspension of a 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
domestic enquiry, chargememo must be served within three
months from the date of suspension. If employer fails to serve the
chargememo within three months, the order of suspension has to
be revoked. If chargesheet/chargememo 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
respresentation is subject to judicial review. When the employer
rejects the request for revocation, 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 suspension is not advisable, as it will cause financial loss
to the Government and also cause mental agony and hardship to
the delinquent employee.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary'
case in paragraphs- 21 22 of the judgment 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
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.''
5. It is also held that in such circumstances, the suspension
order may be revoked and delinquent employee may be tranferred
to a far away place in insignificant post. In the preent case, the
petitioner was suspended on 11.07.2017 and the respondent has
not revoked the order of suspension subsequently. Even after
rejecting his request by impugned order in W.P(MD)No.14343 of
2019, the respondent has not renewed the order of suspension of
the petitioner till date. As per 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.
6. For the above reason, the impugned orders challenged in
W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019 are quashed. The respondent is 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 respondent
to transfer the petitioner to some other place and posting him in an
insignificant post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
7. Accordingly the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
8. In view of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.14343 of 2019,
no further order is necessary in W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021.
Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021 is
dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 22.07.2021
am
To
The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.14343/2019 & 11680/2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
am
W.P.(MD)No.14343 of 2019
and
W.P(MD)No.11680 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
