Madras High Court
S.Marx vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 29 June, 2022
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.12210 of 2021
S.Marx ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
G.O.(2D)No.04 dated 18.01.2021 and quash the same and consequently,
direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all benefits
within a stipulated period.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhiyan
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D)No.04, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (E2) Department, dated 18.01.2021 and quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service
with all benefits within a stipulated period.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Engineer in the office of the Uthangarai Panchayat Union, Krishnagiri
District by the 2nd respondent, by his Proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.32756/2011/K3, dated 10.11.2011. Thereafter, on 05.05.2017, FIR
was registered against the petitioner for the offence of misappropriation of
funds committed during the year 2013-14, while implementing the Indra
Awas Yojana Scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension
vide order dated 18.01.2021, without conducting any enquiry and issuing
notice. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation dated 23.02.2021
to the 1st respondent for revocation of the impugned suspension order and for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
reinstatement into service. The said representation is still pending, no order
has been passed. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in P.Kannan Vs The
Commissioner for Municipal Administration and Others (W.P.Nos.2165 of
2015 and 21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022).
4. In the light of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of
this Court in P.Kannan Vs The Commissioner for Municipal
Administration and Others (W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018
dated 15.03.2022), this Court has already considered and passed the order in
W.P.No.12921 of 2021, dated 13.04.2022, at Paragraph No.7, held as
follows:-
“7. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
(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.
(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.”
5. Following the above said decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court in P.Kannan Vs The Commissioner for Municipal Administration
and Others (W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022)
and order made in W.P.No.12921 of 2021, dated 13.04.2022, this Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
inclined to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 23.02.2021 for revocation of suspension order and reinstatement into
service, in the light of the above said decision of the Full Bench of this Court
and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish the copy
of the representation dated 23.02.2021 along with this order before the 1st
respondent.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
dm
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dm
W.P.No.11477 of 2021
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
