Madras High Court
G.Raja vs The District Collector on 22 June, 2021
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.7863 of 2021
G.Raja ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the
proceedings of the impugned suspension order, dated 08.10.2020 in
Roc.No.A1/17552-3/2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
Government Advocate
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the order
of suspension, dated 08.10.2020, passed by the first respondent.
2.According to the petitioner, he was suspended from service by the
impugned order, dated 08.10.2020, in contemplation of enquiry into grave
charges.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
4.From the materials available on record and the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner's
grandfather was in occupation of Natham property in Paluvoor Village in
Survey No.197/13, by constructing a house and obtained electricity
connection. After the death of his grandfather, his father was in possession.
After the death of his father, his mother was in possession and enjoyment of
the Natham property and renovated the house and the house tax receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
was in the name of his mother, till her death. After the death of his mother,
the petitioner is living with his family. The petitioner submitted an
application before the Tahsildar for issuance of patta in his name and
obtained patta. An objection was raised with reference to the grant of
patta, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.9694 of 2020, to
forbear the respondents from evicting him in Survey No.197/13 at Palluvoor
Village, Silukkapatti Group, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District. The
Division Bench of this Court, by an interim order, dated 11.09.2020, raised
a question as to how the Tahsildar, Kalaiyarkovil, granted patta to the
petitioner. The petitioner is working as B.T Assistant in the Panchayat Union
Middle School, Mudikarai. In view of the interim order of the Division Bench
of this Court, dated 11.09.2020, the petitioner was suspended from service.
A criminal case has also been registered against the Thasildar, Village
Administrative Officer and the petitioner in Crime No.645 of 2020 on the file
of the Paluovoor Police Station, Sivagangai District. Further, according to the
petitioner, he was kept under suspension from 08.10.2020 and the
respondents have not given any reason for keeping the petitioner under
suspension till date. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the Thasildar/K.Magendran filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.
1651 of 2021 before this Court, to quash the order of suspension, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
08.10.2020 and this Court, by order, dated 09.03.2021, quashed the order
of suspension on the ground that no reason was given for extension of
suspension.
5.The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of suspension in the
Judgment reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.
Union of India and another] and held that when an employee is
suspended from service pending criminal case or in contemplation of
disciplinary proceedings, the suspension order cannot be extended beyond
three months, if charge-sheet or charge-memo is not served on the
delinquent employee within three months. If charge-sheet or charge-memo
is served on the delinquent employee, the order of suspension can be
extended beyond three months only by passing reasoned order. The
relevant portions of the said Judgment referred to above 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 concerned person to any Department in any of its offices
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
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 recognized principle of human
dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the
interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that
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.”
As per the Judgment referred to above, when charge-memo or charge-sheet
is served on the delinquent employee, it is open to the delinquent to give a
representation for revocation of suspension. The order passed in the said
representation is subject to judicial review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
7.In the present case, the petitioner has given representation to the
first respondent on 13.05.2021, but till date, the respondents have not
considered and passed orders on the representation of the petitioner either
continuing the petitioner under suspension or revoking the order of
suspension. The respondents are continuing the suspension of the petitioner
without passing any reasoned order. The extension of suspension, after
serving charge-memo or charge-sheet, without passing reasoned order is
invalid.
8.For the above reasons, the impugned order, dated 08.10.2020,
passed by the first respondent is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
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
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.10139 of 2021
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
