Madras High Court
A.Sathish vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 17 June, 2022
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
and
W.M.P No.7916 of 2020
A.Sathish ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by
The Principal Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Director of Town and Country Planning
Directorate of Town and Country Planning
807, Annasalai, Chennai-2. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide
No.ROC No.14744/2019/K1 dated 04.12.2019 and to quash the same
and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back
wages.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
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 quash the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide No.ROC No.14744/2019/K1
dated 04.12.2019 and also to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service with backwages.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief:
While the petitioner was working as Draughts Man Grade-III in
the office of the Erode Local Planning Authority, Erode, a criminal case
was registered for the alleged offence under Section 7 of P.C Act. In
view of the involvement in the criminal case, the respondent placed the
petitioner under suspension under Rule 17(e) (I) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, by impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
proceedings dated 04.12.2019. So far, no departmental proceedings
has been initiated against him and he is entitled for revocation of
suspension order in the light of the Ajaykumar Choudry versus Union
of India case.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the writ petitioner has been under the prolonged suspension for
more than 8 months and hence, he seeks a direction to the second
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh, as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that based on the fresh representation of the
petitioner, the first respondent will take note of the said facts of the
case and take proper decision and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of P.Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
Vs The Commissioner for Municipal Administration and Others
passed in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022
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.6675 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.
7. In the light of the aforesaid decision, this Court is inclined to
direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the second
respondent to consider his request for revocation of suspension. On
receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to
consider the petitioner's request and pass appropriate orders on its own
merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.06.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
uma
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Director of Town and Country Planning
Directorate of Town and Country Planning
807, Annasalai, Chennai-2.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
W.P.No.6675 of 2020
and
W.M.P No.7916 of 2020
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
