Madras High Court
J.Saravanan vs The Collector on 27 April, 2022
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
J.Saravanan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Krishnagiri District,
Collectorate Complex,
Krishnagiri. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
engage the petitioner's services as Assistant Technology Manager (ATM)
pursuant to the orders dated 31.08.2020 and in the light of the representation
dated 14.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
Government Advocate
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents to engage the petitioner's services as
Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) pursuant to the orders dated
31.08.2020 and in the light of the representation dated 14.03.2022 submitted
by the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Technology Manager with
effect from February 2012 on consolidated pay and on temporary basis in the
2nd respondent department. Thereafter, by an order dated 31.08.2020, he was
transferred from Krishnagiri Block to Uthangarai Block. While so, the 2nd
respondent issued an order dated 11.09.2020, by suspending the petitioner,
alleging that a case was registered against the petitioner by CBCID. Inview
of the same, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently he was released on
bail. Thereafter, no investigation has been conducted and no charge sheet has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
been filed even after a lapse of 1 ½ years. Therefore, the petitioner made a
representation to the 1st respondent on 14.03.2022 seeking revocation of
suspension order and to reinstate him in service. But, no steps have been
taken by the respondents. Hence, he filed this instant writ petition before this
Court.
4. Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate takes notice for
the respondents would submit that, the petitioner was placed under
suspension for his involvement in malpractice in the PM Kissan Scheme and
the case is pending before the CBCID for investigation.
5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Full Bench
of this Court, has passed order in the case of P.Kannan Vs The
Commissioner for Municipal Administration and Others (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
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 based on the facts of each case and after noticing
the reason for the delay in serving the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet.
6. Therefore, in the light of the above and also considering the fact that
the case against the petitioner is still pending for investigation, this Court is
inclined to pass the following order.
i) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 14.03.2022 and to pass appropriate orders on its own
merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, within a period of six
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
27.04.2022
(2/2)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ata/mst
To
1.The Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Krishnagiri District,
Collectorate Complex,
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J.
ata/mst
W.P.No.10858 of 2022
27.04.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
