Madras High Court
S.Krishnan vs The Commissioner on 29 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
S.Krishnan ... Petitioner
vs.
The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
revoke the suspension made in proceedings No.VO2/012496/2020, dated
07.10.2020 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated
23.06.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the
respondent to revoke the suspension made in proceedings
No.VO2/012496/2020, dated 07.10.2020 by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 23.06.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Bill
Collector in the respondent Corporation, placed under suspension, by the
respondent on 07.10.2020, in view of the registration of the FIR in Crime
No.5 of 2020, on the file of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai. The
petitioner was remanded and subsequently enlarged on bail. The
respondent has not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. The respondent has not reviewed the order of suspension
from 07.10.2020. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation dated
23.06.2021 to the respondent for revocation of suspension. However, till
date, no order has been passed. Hence, the petitioner has come out with
the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials
on record carefully.
4. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the
respondent by proceeding dated 07.10.2020, suspended the petitioner
from service, in view of the registration of criminal case in Crime No.5
of 2020 and arrest of the petitioner. Till date, no charge memo was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
issued to the petitioner and no charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.5
of 2020. The issue of revocation of suspension was considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.
Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. The Hon'ble Apex Court
held that when a delinquent employee is suspended from service pending
criminal case or disciplinary proceedings, if charge sheet is not filed or
charge memo is not served on the delinquent, then suspension order must
be revoked. When the charge sheet is filed in criminal case or charge
memo is served on the delinquent, the remedy available to the delinquent
employee is to make a representation for revocation of suspension. On
receipt of such representation, the concerned authority shall consider the
representation of the delinquent and pass orders for revocation of
suspension or rejecting the representation. Such order is subject to
judicial review. The relevant portions of the said judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court read 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
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 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. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 23.06.2021 and pass orders either revoking the order of suspension
or rejecting the representation of the petitioner by giving valid reasons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
vsm 29.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
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
The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
vsm
W.P(MD)No.12545 of 2021
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
