Madras High Court
T.Gandhimathi vs State on 17 June, 2022
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
and
W.M.P No.4205 of 2020
T.Gandhimathi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State, rep. by
The Inspector General of Registration
Registration Department
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai-600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration
Registration Department,
Salem-636 001
3.The District Registrar
Registration Department
Namakkal District-637 003.
4. The Sub Registrar
Mohanoor Sub Registrar Office
Namakkal District-637 015. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings
No.2275/A1/2019, dated 31.05.2019 and rejection order of the 1st
respondent in Letter No.22026/V2/2019-I, dated 12.12.2019 and to
quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate
the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other
attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Vivekanandam
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 Proc. No.2275/A1/2019, dated
31.05.2019 and rejection order of the 1st respondent in Letter
No.22026/V2/2019-I, dated 12.12.2019 and also to direct the 1st
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
service and all other attendant benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief:
While the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant, a criminal
case was registered for the alleged offence under Section offence under
Section 7 of P.C Act and subsequently, she was sent to judicial custody.
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
proceedings dated 31.05.3019. So far, no departmental proceedings
has been initiated against her and she 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 3 years and hence, he seeks a direction to the first
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh, as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
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 be taken 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
(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.
7. In the light of the aforesaid decision, this Court is inclined to
direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the first
respondent to consider her request for revocation of suspension. On
such representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
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.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.06.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
uma
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Registration Department
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai-600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration
Registration Department,
Salem-636 001
3.The District Registrar
Registration Department
Namakkal District-637 003.
4. The Sub Registrar
Mohanoor Sub Registrar Office
Namakkal District-637 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
uma
W.P.No.3574 of 2020
and
W.M.P No.4205 of 2020
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
