Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs S.Arumugam on 7 September, 2021
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A.No. 540 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No. 2117 of 2021
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Pol.IV) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu, Chennai- 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirupur District, Tirupur. ...Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
S.Arumugam ...Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order, dated 02.04.2019, passed in W.P.No. 7381 of 2019 and
allow this Writ Appeal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.K.Tippusultan
Government Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J)
This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 02.04.2019,
passed in W.P.No. 7381 of 2019, in allowing the Writ Petition .
2. The Writ Petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.12.2010
and sought for revocation of the same, which was rejected by the First
Appellant vide order dated 07.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed
by this Court on 02.04.2019 and the learned Judge has revoked the order of
suspension and directed to reinstate the Writ Petitioner in service and
directed the Appellants herein to post the writ petitioner in any one of the
non sensitive post till the conclusion of the departmental procceedings as
well as criminal case registered against him. As against the said order, the
present Writ Appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
Appellants. Perused the records.
3.By keeping the employee under suspension for long years and
paying substistence allowance without extracting work will cause financial
loss to the Government and The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay
Kumarchoudry Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another
[(2015) 7 SCC 291], made it clear that the suspension should be reviewed
periodically, by the disciplinary authority.
4. One of us (SVNJ) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
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 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.”
5. It is quite natural that if a public servant is kept under suspension
for long time, any Court will hold that the suspension should be revoked
and the delinquent should be posted in a non-sensitive post, which has been
done by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned herein.
6. In such view of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Writ Appeal is
dismissed, with liberty to the Appellants to proceed with the enquiry. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.,] [A.A.N., J]
07.09.2021
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/no
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J
and
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J
arr
W.A.No. 540 of 2021
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
