Madras High Court
G.Tamiziniyan vs The Chairman on 22 April, 2022
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 4384 of 2022
and WMP.No.4507 of 2022
G.Tamiziniyan ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TNGEDCO), NPKRR Maaligai,
No. 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600002.
2.The Chief Engineer – Distribution,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TNGEDCO),
Villupuram Region, Villupuram.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
O/o. The Superintending Engineer,
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Capper Hills, Cuddalore – 4.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
Lalpet – 608 303
Cuddalore District. .. Respondent
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to impugned Letter No. 025116/ SE/ CEDC/ Cud/ Adm.1/
A3/ F.Sus/ 2019-1 dated 18.05.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to re-instate
the petitioner in service as commercial Assistant with all attendant
/consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Mohammed Ashish
For Mr. D. Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian, Standing Counsel
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is to call for the records
pertaining to impugned Letter No. 025116/ SE/ CEDC/ Cud/ Adm.1/ A3/
F.Sus/ 2019-1 dated 18.05.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to re-instate the
petitioner in service as commercial Assistant with all attendant /consequential
benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as
Helper in the year 2009 and subsequently promoted as Commercial Assistant
and has been working in the 4th respondent Board from 10.02.2014. Based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
the complaint made by one R.Ilanjzhiyan, the petitioner was trapped and
arrested by DVAC authorities for the offences under Section 7,11 and 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a FIR was registered in
Crime No. 5/2018/C/CUD, dated 12.07.2018. Based on the same, the
petitioner was suspended from service by proceedings of the 3 rd respondent
dated 15.07.2018. The petitioner has made representation dated 26.08.2019
for revocation of suspension. The said request was rejected without giving any
reason. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on
behalf of the respondents. Despite time granted to file counter affidavit, no
steps have been taken by the respondents, hence based on the available
materials, the following order is passed.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that based
on the FIR, a Criminal Case has been registered as Spl.C.C.No. 16 of 2018 on
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Cuddalore and the
trial has not been commenced till date. Mere suspension is indirectly
imposing as punishment cannot be accepted and the continuation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
suspension is against the judicial principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs. Union of India, reported
201597) SCC 291.
5. In this context, it is pertinent to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of
2018 dated 15.03.2022, wherein a reference was made to the two conflicting
judgments rendered by the Division Benches of this Court on a challenge to
the order of suspension, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
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 based
on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the
delay in serving the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension
for more than 15 months and the trial in the criminal case has also not been
commenced, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the respondent to
consider the representation made by the petitioner in the light of the decision
of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. It is made clear that this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the charges framed on the petitioner, it is for the
authorities concerned to take appropriate action.
7. Further, on perusal of impugned order would disclose that the
respondent had rejected the petitioner's request without stating any reason.
Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
8. In the light of the foregoing discussions and the decision of the
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, this Court without any hesitation is inclined
to quash the impugned order as the same was issued without stating any
reason for rejection.
Accordingly, the following order is passed;
i. Impugned rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent dated
15.07.2018 is quashed.
ii. Petitioner is permitted to make fresh representation to the respondent
enclosing all particulars, within a period two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. On receipt of such representation, the respondent is directed to consider
the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, by
taking note of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court cited supra.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TNGEDCO), NPKRR Maaligai,
No. 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600002.
2.The Chief Engineer – Distribution,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TNGEDCO),
Villupuram Region, Villupuram.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
O/o. The Superintending Engineer,
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Capper Hills, Cuddalore – 4.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
Lalpet – 608 303
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4384 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
ak
W.P.No. 4384 of 2022
and
WMP.No.4507 of 2022
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
