Madras High Court
R.Duraisamy vs The Joint Registrar on 21 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6928 & 8073 of 2021
R.Duraisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies
Tiruchirapalli Region,
Tiruchirapalli District.
2.The Deputy Registrar
of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirapalli Region,
Tiruchirapalli District.
3.4836 Purathakudi Primary
Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society Ltd.,
Purathakudi,
Trichy District.
4.K.P.Aralasu
5.K.Chitra ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
first respondent, dated 23.04.2021 in proceedings Na.Ka.
2589/2020/Po.Pathi, quash the same, as the same is arbitrary, ultra
vires, in colorable exercise of powers and with a mala fide
intention.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed
by the first respondent, dated 23.04.2021 in Na.Ka.
2589/2020/Po.Pathi, as the same is arbitrary, ultra vires, in
colorable exercise of powers and with a malafide intention.
2. The petitioner while working as Secretary in the third
respondent Society and in-charge of Chinna Anaikaraipatti Primary
Agricultural Credit Society, was suspended from service, by the
impugned order, dated 23.04.2021. The petitioner has come out
with the present writ petition challenging the order of suspension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
3. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any
misconduct and he has acted only as per Rules and Government
Orders. The petitioner while in-charge of Chinna Anaikaraipatti
Primary Agricultural Credit Society, found out certain irregularities
and gave a complaint, dated 16.02.2021, to the second respondent
against one S. Rajalingam, Senior Attendor. At the instigation of
said Rajalingam, the second respondent has instructed the third
respondent to file an appeal against the judgment in C.M.A(Cs).No.
12 of 2017, allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
petitioner challenging the order of surcharge proceedings passed
against him. Only at the instigation of said Rajalingam, the first
respondent has passed the impugned order of suspension.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
extensively referred to various charges levelled against the
petitioner in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and
submitted that these allegations are false and levelled against the
petitioner only at the instigation of said Rajalingam. The order of
suspension is passed with mala fide intention and in colorable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
exercise of powers and prayed for setting aside the impugned order
of suspension by allowing the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
6. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the
impugned order is passed in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings. The first respondent, in the impugned order, has
mentioned the various incidence of alleged irregularities and
misconduct committed by the petitioner. It is well settled that an
order of suspension can be passed by the competent authority
considering the gravity of alleged misconduct and nature of
evidence available. Effect on public interest due to the employee's
continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor.
The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration, as no
formula of Universal application can be laid down in this regard.
However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a
strong prima facie case against the delinquent and if the charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major
punishment, i.e., removal or dismissal from service or reduction in
rank etc. Even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is
ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere in case of suspension,
as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority, who can
always review its order of suspension being an inherent power
conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority
can consider the case of an employee for revoking suspension
order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be
concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee
concerned. These principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgment reported in 2013(16) SCC 147 [Union of
India and another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal].
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.
Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, held that when
suspension is ordered pending criminal case or in contemplation of
disciplinary proceedings, if chargesheet or chargememo is not
served on the delinquent employee within three months from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
date of suspension, the suspension has to be revoked. In the
present case, the petitioner is suspended only on 23.04.2021.
8. It seen that the first respondent has suspended the
petitioner in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for the
alleged irregularities and misconduct committed by the petitioner.
The first respondent has mentioned various misconducts alleged to
have been committed by the petitioner. This Court, at this stage,
cannot consider various submissions made challenging various
allegations made in the suspension order, on merits. Similarly, the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
the order of suspension is malafide and in colorable exercise of
powers also cannot be considered at this stage, as the allegations
against the respondents 1 & 2 is that they are acting at the
instigation of one Rajalingam against whom, the petitioner has
made a complaint.
9. For the above reasons, considering the facts of the present
case in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, the writ petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
To
1.The Joint Registrar
of Co-Operative Societies
Tiruchirapalli Region,
Tiruchirapalli District.
2.The Deputy Registrar
of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirapalli Region,
Tiruchirapalli District.
3.4836 Purathakudi Primary
Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society Ltd.,
Purathakudi,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.9195 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
