Madras High Court
K.Kannan vs The Director Of School Education on 19 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD)No.12103 of 2021
K.Kannan ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Joint Director (Personnel),
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
Pro.Roc.No.037621/A3/E3/2020 dated 27.07.2021 and quash the same
and consequently, direct the respondents to revoke the order of
suspension imposed on the petitioner dated 28.09.2020 in Pro.Rc.No.
3762/A3/S3/2020 dated 28.09.2020 and reinstate the petitioner with all
attendant benefits within the time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.W.Pamelin
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the order of the second
respondent passed in Pro.Roc.No.037621/A3/E3/2020 dated
27.07.2021, in and by which, the second respondent rejected the
request of the petitioner to revoke the order of suspension dated
28.09.2020.
2. The petitioner, who is working as Superintendent in the third
respondent office, is involved in a case in Cr.No.54 of 2020 for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and
based on the criminal case, he was placed under suspension, by order
dated 28.09.2020.
3. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in Cr.No.54 of 2020 and a
final report was filed in the criminal case and trial is pending on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. Based on
the very same charge, the second respondent issued a charge memo on
07.10.2020. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation for the
charges on 31.12.2020. He also submitted a representation on
05.01.2021 to revoke the order of suspension, but, the same was not
considered. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.6185 of 2021 for a Mandamus to direct the respondents
to revoke the order of suspension. This Court, by order dated
19.03.2021, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the second
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
05.01.2021, in the light of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case. Accordingly, the second respondent
passed an order on 27.07.2021, rejecting the request of the petitioner
for revoking the order of suspension dated 28.09.2020. Challenging
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Ms.W.Pamelin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the charges in the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings
are similar in nature. There is no possibility of the criminal case
reaching it logical conclusion in near future and the departmental
proceedings could not be concluded pending the criminal case. In view
of the same, the petitioner and his family are deeply affected.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per
G.O.Ms.No.211, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
dated 27.02.1980, the period of suspension has to be reviewed every
six months and the same was also reiterated by the order of the Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case and the petitioner is in a
prolonged suspension for more than a year.
6. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is involved in
a serious criminal case with corruption charges for tampering of
documents. The Government has already clarified that to encourage
cleanliness in public service, the time limit of three months on
suspension cases is not applicable to the cases pertaining to Vigilance
and Anti Corruption cases and Criminal cases. According to the learned
Additional Government Pleader, the case registered against the
petitioner is related to Vigilance and Anti Corruption case. Therefore,
the second respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the request
of the petitioner for revoking the order of suspension as per the
guidelines issued by the Government, in Government Letter dated
23.07.2015. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also
relied on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
599 of 2020, dated 02.09.2020, wherein, it has been held that in the
case of corruption, review of suspension does not arise.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents further submits that a charge memo was issued against the
petitioner on 07.10.2020 and the petitioner also offered his explanation
on 31.12.2020 and enquiry was completed and enquiry report was also
submitted on 31.06.2021. Based on the enquiry report, the second
show cause notice is also issued to the petitioner on 08.07.2021. If
required time is provided, final orders could be passed within a period
of eight weeks.
8. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
9. The petitioner, while working as Superintendent in the office
of the third respondent, was held responsible for issuing forged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
appointment orders to four persons as Junior Assistants, during the
counselling on 17.09.2020 and 18.09.2020. Therefore, a criminal case
was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.54 of 2020 on
26.09.2020 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC
and he was also arrested on 27.09.2020. Pursuant to the same, the
petitioner was placed under suspension on public interest pending
enquiry into grave charges by order dated 28.09.2020.
10. It appears that in the criminal case, final report was also filed
and trial is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanathapuram. When a Government Servant, who is also a Public
servant, is arrested and being tried in a criminal case, he cannot be
allowed to discharge his duty as a public servant, as it may affect the
confidence of public.
11. Pending the suspension, charges were also framed against
the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
Discipline and Appeal Rules and a charge memo was also issued to him
on 07.10.2020. The petitioner also offered his explanation on
31.12.2020. The Department also appointed an Enquiry Officer and
enquiry was also concluded and the Enquiry Officer has also submitted
his report on 21.06.2021. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was
also issued to the petitioner on 08.07.2021.
12. The First Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.599 of 2020, vide
Judgment dated 02.09.2020, has passed the following order:
“11. Upon considering the law laid down in the
judgments that have been discussed herein above, it is
clear that there is no absolute rule in respect of the
validity of suspension orders from the perspective of
duration especially when such suspension is in the
context of a pending criminal proceeding. In other words,
in these situations, the law on suspension as laid down in
paragraph 11 of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964
SC 787, by a Five Judge Bench upholding suspension
pending enquiry subject to payment of subsistence
allowance as per service conditions and that in Union of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147,
wherein it was held that the court does not sit in appeal
and that such orders would be interfered with only if the
charges are patently baseless, mala fide or vindictive
would continue to hold the field. In this case, as stated
earlier, there is a pending criminal proceeding, wherein
the Respondent is being prosecuted for corruption. In
these circumstances, the decision of the learned single
Judge to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude
the proceeding within four months is justified and does
not warrant interference. On the other hand, especially in
light of the above direction, the revocation of the
suspension on the ground that it is prolonged is clearly
unsustainable. The consequential direction to post the
Respondent in a nonsensitive post is also not sustainable
especially in view of the fact that the Respondent is an
Assistant Engineer and it is difficult to find a post that
may be termed non-sensitive in that cadre. Therefore, we
allow the appeal in part insofar as it directs the
Appellants to revoke the suspension and to post the
Respondent in a non-sensitive post. On the other hand,
we affirm the impugned order to the extent that the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, has been directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
to conclude the criminal proceedings within a period of
four months, albeit with the qualification that the said
period shall run from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment in this appeal”
13. In view of the Judgment of the First Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.599 of 2020, dated 02.09.2020 (cited supra), this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the suspension.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the disciplinary
authority is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.01.2022
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
ogy
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy
of the order may be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
To
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Joint Director (Personnel),
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P(MD)No.15167 of 2021
19.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
