Madras High Court
S.Dhinakaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 March, 2021
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.1002 of 2021 and
WMP Nos.1102 and 1103 of 2021
S.Dhinakaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner,
of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent in G.O.(2D).No.106, Revenue and Disaster management Department,
Services Wing, Service. 2(1) Section, dated 02.06.2020, to quash the same and to issue
consequential directions to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in Service with
consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Akshaya Shanker
For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed, to quash G.O.(2D).No.106, Revenue and Disaster
management Department, Services Wing, Service. 2(1) Section, dated 02.06.2020
issued by the first respondent and for a consequential directions to the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in Service with consequential benefits.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner rendered more than 20 years of
service in the Revenue Department and he was falsely implicated in a criminal case on
the basis of the complaint given on 28.02.2020, alleging demand of Rs.50,000/- as
bribe, due to which the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
28.02.2020. It is a further case of the petitioner that consequent to the arrest, he has
been kept under prolonged suspension without any review. Hence, the petitioner has
made a representation before the 1st respondent on 28.10.2021, requesting the 1st and 2nd
respondents to reinstate him into service. However, as there is no response on the side
of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. A reading of the entire averments shows that there is no iota of evidence as to
the initiation of departmental action against the petitioner and though the DVAC case is
pending against the petitioner, it will not preclude the higher officials to proceed against
the petitioner departmentally. An employee charged with the allegation of bribe should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
not be allowed to continue in service in the guise of suspension and later on permit to
retire and get all the monetary benefits on the ground of acquittal from the Criminal
Court and non-initiation of departmental enquiry.
4. This Court has elaborately dealt with the issue of suspension in W.P.No.13 of
2021 (V.Mohanraj vs. The Secretary and two others), and passed a detailed order on
06.01.2021, holding as under:
"6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
is not going to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the
post of Inspector by including him in the panel and it is for the
respondents to consider the same. It is needless to mention that if any
departmental proceedings have been commenced or initiated, it is open
to the respondents to proceed with the same so as to bring the
proceedings to a logical end, dehors pendency of the criminal case, as
both criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously and the criminal case should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary evidence, whereas
charges in the departmental proceedings should be established on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities. If Criminal Proceedings are not
initiated or concluded within one year from the date of FIR, there is no
hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the departmental
proceedings on day to-day basis and bring the issue to a logical end at
the earliest point of time and the employee will have to participate in the
departmental proceedings and shall not attempt to adopt dilatory tactics.
7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen
Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish v. and others, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 636, has clearly laid down a dictum as under:
“19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration
all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact
that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion
in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we
do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently
served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges
against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of
one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the
Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the
witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court
may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a
fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also
expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the
trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say
so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for
a long time on account of non- availability of the defense
lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of
adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds.
All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not
completed within the period of one year from the date of this
order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been
directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the
Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that
case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from
the date of the order.
20. In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part
and to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear
their own costs.”
8. For the purpose of brevity, this Court makes it very clear that if
any criminal proceedings have been initiated after commencement of the
departmental proceedings, the one year time limit mentioned supra will
not apply to those cases and the departmental proceedings shall go on
uninterruptedly. Invariably, the offenders, who have committed grave
offences, are being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, owing to
missing link in the chain of events and are trying to get back the entire
backwages and for those persons, employment itself is a lottery.
9. In the present case on hand, even according to the petitioner, a
charge memo has been issued as early as on 18.12.2015 and in case any
departmental proceedings had already commenced, the same shall be
proceeded on a day to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
seven working days at any point of time and brought to a logical
conclusion at the earliest. The petitioner shall co-operate for early
attainment of the proceedings.
10. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs."
5. The order of suspension is not a punishment and the relationship between the
employer and the employee subsists even during the period of suspension. When there
is master and servant relationship, the suspension can be effected by the employer and it
cannot be questioned except on certain grounds like competence of the Authority
issuing the said order, want of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules, etc. As long as the
competency of the authority issuing the suspension order is not challenged, this Court
cannot interfere with the order of the suspension. It is for the respondents to review the
suspension periodically, depending upon the circumstances prevalent, taking note of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of
India through its Secretary and another, reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, and to
consider reinstatement in a non sensitive post, provided there are no legal impediments,
as tax payers' money should not be wasted in the form of payment of subsistence
allowance without work.
6. The petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 28.10.2020 and
the same is pending with the respondents. Therefore, a direction is issued to the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2020, if not
already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders thereon in respect of his revocation, in
accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. It is needless to mention that if any departmental proceedings have been
commenced or initiated, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the same so as to
bring the proceedings to a logical end and the respondents, while taking a decision,
shall bear in mind the judgments of the Apex Court (supra) and this Court dated
06.01.2021 made in W.P.No.13 of 2021 in V.Mohanraj case, (cited supra) especially in
paragraph Nos.6 & 9.
8. It is made clear that the enquiry should not be stalled, citing the reason of non
availability of documents. If the documents are taken by the DVAC or other
Departments or filed before the Court, certified copies of those documents can be
obtained by the Department and in the event of any such request made, other
Departments are bound to furnish the same, in order to enable the concerned
Department to proceed with the enquiry against the delinquent and DVAC or other
Departments should not be a party for non-conduct of enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
9. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
03.03.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
vum
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner,
of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1002 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
vum
W.P.No.1002 of 2021 and
WMP Nos.1102 and 1103 of 2021
03.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
