Madras High Court
A.Baskaran vs The District Collector on 18 April, 2022
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
A.Baskaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Director,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 bearing
Roc.No.PA2/4869/2021 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same
by directing the respondents permitting the petitioner to continue with his
services.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 bearing
Roc.No.PA2/4869/2021 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same
by directing the respondents permitting the petitioner to continue with his
services.
2.Brief facts of the case:
While the petitioner was working as a Block Development Officer
(BD) St.Thomas Mount Block, Chittlapakkam, Chennai, on 07.11.2019, his
house was raided by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti -Corruption
Department and based upon the said raid a case in FIR No.6 of 2021, dated
15.02.2021 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Section 12 read with Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act 2018. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
clarified that the house property of the petitioner at Chengalpattu was
purchased by her wife, however, the first respondent has passed a non
speaking impugned order in ROC No.PA2/4869/2021, dated 29.07.2021, by
placing the petitioner under suspension under Sub Rule 17(e)(1) of Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Hence, he filed this
instant writ petition before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the
writ petitioner was working as Block Development Officer (BP) Panchayat
Union, ST.Thomas Mount, Chengalpattu District, during the year 2020, the
first respondent has issued a non-speaking impugned order by placing the
petitioner under suspension under sub-rule (e)(1) of Rule 17 of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for the alleged criminal
proceedings initiated by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. He
would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the
respondents in the aforesaid criminal case. Further, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid involvement in the criminal
case is purely a private in nature and it has nothing to do with the course of
the employment and therefore, the request made by the petitioner may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
considered by the authorities for revocation of the order of suspension.
Further, he would relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 291] and
submitted that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner shall not be placed under prolonged suspension.
4.Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate has filed counter
affidavit on behalf of the respondents by stating that on 07.11.2019 the
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has conducted a
raid and it resulted in registration of FIR in Crime No.6 of 2021 on
15.02.2020, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner and his wife. Based
on the involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case, the respondent
has passed the order of suspension on 29.07.2021 as per the G.O.Ms.No.120
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 21.11.2013 and
under Sub-Rule 17(e) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules with immediate effect. Therefore, according to the learned
Government Advocate, the said impugned order of suspension is perfectly
valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
6.On a reference made to the two conflicting judgments rendered by
the Division Benches of this Court on a challenge to the order of suspension,
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of
2018 dated 15.03.2022, has answered as under:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute
proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be
continued beyond the period of three months if the
memorandum of charges / charge-sheet has not been served
within three months, or if memorandum of charges/charge
-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.
(ii) The judgment in R.Balaji, supra, has no reference to
the earlier judgments of co-equal strength and is thereby
rendered per incuriam.
(iii) The issue of challenge to the order of suspension
should be analyzed on the facts of each case, considering the
gravity of the charges and the rules applicable.
(iv) Revocation of suspension with a direction to the
employer to post the delinquent in a non-sensitive post cannot
be endorsed or directed as a matter of course. It has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason
for the delay in serving the memorandum of charges/charge-
sheet.
7.On considering the aforesaid facts, it is seen that a criminal case is
pending against the petitioner in Crime No. 6 of 2021, however, in view of
the Full Bench decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of
2018 dated 15.03.2022, this Court directs the petitioner to make fresh
representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being received,
the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible preferably
within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dua
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Director,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dua
W.P.No.16606 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.17594 of 2021
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
