Madras High Court
N.Balakumar vs The Commissioner on 4 March, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10961 of 2018
N.Balakumar : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Srivillipudhur Municipality,
Srivillipudhur,
Virudhunagar District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order
dated 09.02.2018 made in W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2018.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.D.Selvanayagam
For 1st Respondent : Mrs.J.P.Padmavathi Devi
Special Government Pleader
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.J.Parekh Kumar
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The appellant, who is a Sweeper, has been suspended way-back in the
year 2014, in pursuant to the case registered in Crime No.5 of 2014, followed by
his arrest. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2018, seeking to reinstate him on
the ground of prolonged suspension.
2.The learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition inter-alia
holding that in view of the fact that the criminal case is pending, the decision of
the Apex Court reported in 2015(2) CTC 119 - Ajay Kumar Chowdry Vs. Union
of India, will not have any application and so also the order of the Division
Bench.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that apart from the
fact that the appellant was not named in the First Information Report, Accused
No.1, who is a Sanitory Supervisor, by name, Suresh Kumar, got his suspension,
revoked. The appellant is only a Sweeper. Now more than six years have lapsed.
The Criminal case is not proceeded further. The charge sheet itself has not been
filed. Therefore, the order of suspension is required to be revoked.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the
aforesaid Accused No.1 suspension has been revoked, in pursuant to the orders of
the Court, the appellant cannot seek as a matter of right to set aside the suspension
order, in view of the pendency of the criminal case.
5.The appellant and the Accused No.1 are the co-accused. The
appellant was working under Accused No.1. He is working in the capacity of only
as a Sweeper. When once Accused No.1 has been given the benefit either by the
Court order or otherwise, the same will have to be extended to the appellant also.
The Criminal case has not been proceeded further, by starting the trial. Though,
charge sheet has been filed contra to what has been stated earlier, it would take
substantially few more years to complete the proceedings.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
6. We have to look into it from another point of view, the appellant
has been receiving the subsistence allowance, without doing any work. After
completion of one year, the subsistence allowance has been increased from 50% to
75% . It is not as if the appellant, is going to interfere with the proceedings or
tamper the records. The Departmental proceedings are yet to be initiated and the
suspension order is only for having undergone incarceration, in pursuant to the
arrest made.
7.Thus, Considering the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside
the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently, allowing the writ petition.
8.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the appellant in any one of the place, which they choose, as
Sweeper.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
Internet : Yes 04.03.2021
rm
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
To
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
rm
W.A.(MD)No.1537 of 2018
04.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
