Madras High Court
T.Kumar vs The Secretary To Government on 22 April, 2022
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos.17104, 17108 & 17109 of 2020
T.Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (ME.4) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar,
Chennai – 600 028. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the impugned orders of the 1st respondent issued in G.O.(2D) No.18,
MAWS Department dated 07.03.2018 and the orders issued in G.O.(D)
No.65, MAWS Department dated 20.02.2020 rejecting the request of
the Petitioner for revocation of suspension without examining on
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
merits and directed by the Division Bench and quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for revocation of suspension in the light of the orders already
passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents to other similarly placed persons
mentioned in para 15 above.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. According to the writ petitioner, the petitioner was placed
under suspension by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated
07.03.2018, (with effect from date of detention i.e. 09.08.2017), for the
incident that occurred on 08.08.2017, based on the complaint that he
had accepted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- for sanctioning the bill
amount of Rs.10,90,200/- towards the settlement of the bills for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
month of May, June and July 2017 in connection with the outsourcing
of employees for Dengue eradication work. The aforesaid suspension
order was challenged before this Court in W.P No.27244 of 2018 and
this Court, by an order dated 06.12.2018, directed to reinstate the
petitioner in the non-sensitive post. Challenging the said order, the
respondent department has preferred an appeal in W.A No.1842 of
2019 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated
17.06.2019 directed the respondent department to review the
suspension of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first and second
respondents have failed to sanction even 75% subsistence allowance
beyond the period of six months. The first and second respondents
have already considered the case of similarly placed persons like the
petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P No.34303
of 2019 before this Court seeking direction to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vellore to conduct the trial in Spl. C.C No.6 of 2019 and
this Court, by an order dated 20.12.2019 directed the trial Court to
dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension was rejected by
the first respondent on 20.02.2020. Challenging the aforesaid order, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2017 and
for the past five years, the respondent department has not initiated any
disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner and the criminal case
has also not been concluded by the concerned jurisdictional criminal
Court. He would further submit that the respondent department has not
paid 75% of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the
suspension period and hence, prays to quash the impugned suspension
order passed by the first respondent.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondent department would submit that the charges as against the
petitioner is grave in nature and the said criminal case is pending
before the trial Court. But, the respondent department has not initiated
any departmental proceedings as against the petitioner. At this stage, he
would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court
in the case of P.Kannan Vs The Commissioner for Municipal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
Administration and Others passed in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and
21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022, wherein it is held as follows:
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
(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 based on the facts of
each case and after noticing the reason for the delay
in serving the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet.
The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that if
any such representation was made by the petitioner, the same will be
considered in the light of the aforesaid decision and based on the
gravity of the charges and prolonged suspension pending against the
petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law.
5. On considering the said submissions, it is made clear that the
petitioner has been placed under suspension in the year 2017 and
therefore, the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court for
revocation of suspension on earlier occasion. Pursuant to the direction
of this Court, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
department for revocation of suspension, but the respondent
department has rejected the said claim. According to the writ petitioner,
inspite of a direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P No.17697 of 2020
to dispose of the case in Spl.C.C No.6 of 2019 within a period of six
months, the trial is still pending and no final order has been passed.
Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of
this Court, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the first respondent and the same is liable to be
quashed.
6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent vide G.O
(D) No.65, MAWS Department dated 20.02.2020 is hereby quashed
and the matter is remitted to the first respondent.
ii) After receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to
consider the petitioner's claim afresh and pass appropriate orders, in
the light of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022, as
expeditiously as possible, with a period of six weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) The respondents are also directed to pass appropriate orders
for payment of 75% of subsistence allowance as per rules, if any such
request is made by the petitioner.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
uma
To
1.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME.4) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar,
Chennai – 600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
uma
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
W.M.P Nos.17104, 17108 and 17109 of 2020
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13760 of 2020
In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to direct the writ
petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with all relevant documents
along with the representation. If any such representation is made
within the stipulated time, the 2nd respondent will consider in the light
of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court, as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
