Madras High Court
T.Velusamy vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 2 September, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
T.Velusamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Commisionarate of Municipal Administration
MRC Nagar, Santhom High Road
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28
2.The Commissioner
Devakottai Municipality
Devakottai, Sivagangai District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned suspension order of the respondent No.1, dated 22.10.2020 in
R.O.C.No.19012/2020/V2 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.Narayanan.R.
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Government Counsel for R1
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 7
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned suspension order dated
22.10.2020, passed by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner into service by considering his representation dated
14.07.2021.
2. The petitioner was working as a Revenue Inspector in the second
respondent Municipality. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption trapped the
petitioner for the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification
and in pursuance of the trap proceedings, a case in Crime No.03 of 2020 was
registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Sivagangai, as against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, on the basis of
the report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, by the impugned
order dated 14.07.2021 of the first respondent, the petitioner was placed
under suspension. Challenging the suspension order, the petitioner has filed
this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
even though the case was registered against the petitioner as early as on
16.10.2020, there is no progress in the criminal case and still it is in the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
investigation stage and sofar no charge sheet has been laid before the
concerned Court and in such circumstances, the petitioner is in prolonged
suspension. Further, he would submit that the impugned suspension order is
completely against the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (cited supra), wherein it was held that
the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if
the memorandum of charges / charge sheet is not served on the delinquent
officer / employee and therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside
the impugned suspension order.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the petitioner was involved in an illegal
gratification and it is a very serious offence and the proceedings are pending
with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and the revocation of the
impugned suspension order at this stage would certainly demoralize the
Department and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
6. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment
dated 02.09.2020 in W.A.No.599 of 2020 [Tamil Nadu Generation &
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
Distribution Corporation Limited and others vs. A.Srinivasan], has dealt
with an identical issue and disposed of the writ petition by referring to the
decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (cited supra) and Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Dr.Rishi
Anand [2017 SCC online Del 10506). The relevant portion of the said
Judgment is extracted hereunder:
“11. Upon considering the law laid down in the
judgments that have been discussed herein above, it is
clear that there is no absolute rule in respect of the
validity of suspension orders from the perspective of
duration especially when such suspension is in the
context of a pending criminal proceeding. In other words,
in these situations, the law on suspension as laid down
in paragraph 11 of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR
1964 SC 787, by a Five Judge Bench upholding
suspension pending enquiry subject to payment of
subsistence allowance as per service conditions and
that in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
(2013) 16 SCC 147, wherein it was held that the court
does not sit in appeal and that such orders would be
interfered with only if the charges are patently baseless,
mala fide or vindictive would continue to hold the field.
In this case, as stated earlier, there is a pending
criminal proceeding, wherein the Respondent is being
prosecuted for corruption. In these circumstances, the
decision of the learned single Judge to direct the Chief
Judicial Magistrate to conclude the proceeding within
four months is justified and does not warrant
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
interference. On the other hand, especially in light of the
above direction, the revocation of the suspension on the
ground that it is prolonged is clearly unsustainable. The
consequential direction to post the Respondent in a non-
sensitive post is also not sustainable especially in view
of the fact that the Respondent is an Assistant Engineer
and it is difficult to find a post that may be termed non-
sensitive in that cadre. Therefore, we allow the appeal in
part insofar as it directs the Appellants to revoke the
suspension and to post the Respondent in a non-
sensitive post. On the other hand, we affirm the
impugned order to the extent that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, has been directed to
conclude the criminal proceedings within a period of four
months, albeit with the qualification that the said period
shall run from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment in this appeal.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of on
the above terms. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
7. In the light of the above cited decision, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to make an application before the respondents seeking revocation of
the impugned suspension order. If any application is made by the petitioner,
it is for the respondents to consider the same on merits and in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
02.09.2021
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.
krk
To:
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Commisionarate of Municipal Administration,
MRC Nagar, Santhom High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-28.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.14097 of 2021
02.09.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
