Madras High Court
M.Marimuthu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 June, 2022
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 9.6.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.12802 of 2022
M.Marimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udaiyarpalayam,
Ariyalur District. ... Respondent
Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
connected with the impugned order of suspension in Rc. No.A1/ 1590/ 2021
dated 09.07.2021 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct
the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, A.G.P.
******
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the petitioner while working as
Village Administrative Officer, based on a complaint given by one Aruljothi,
an F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.1 of 2021 and the petitioner was
arrested in a trap was conducted against the petitioner on 7.7.2021 and the
petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was released on
bail. Based on the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
placed under suspension. According to the petitioner, till the date of filinig
writ petition, no charge memo was served to the petitioner and also no
charge framed against the petitioner by the Directorate of Vigilance and
Anti Corruption. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. Therefore, the impugned
order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed.
2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed by the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption department and therefore, interference of
this Court is not warranted at this stage. In support of his contention, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 (2)
CTC 353 [P. Kannan Vs. Commissioner for Municipal Administration and
Others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
''34. Referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex
Court, a Division Bench of this court in The
Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO v. Mohan Kumar,
[Judgment dated 20.1.2022 passed in W.A. (MD) No. 1827
of 2021] held as under:
“20. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the
Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment,
but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee
to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It
is with the direction that each case may be considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the
offence or the misconduct. The interference with the
order of suspension should not be driven in reference
to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and
after considering the rules governing the delinquent.
Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In
the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is
quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe
and was caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption
Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were
not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing
interference with the order of suspension. It is even after
ignoring the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the
case of A. Srinivasan (supra), wherein it was categorically
held that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not evolve a general
principle for causing interference with the order of
suspension if charge-sheet is not served or charge memo is
not filed within three months of the order of suspension. The
finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.
Srinivasan (supra) has even been ignored, though binding
in nature.
21. In view of the above, we find reasons to cause
interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge
as none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
writ petitioner/non-appellant provide assistance on the
issue, rather those judgments have been given referring to
the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra),
without analyzing the fact that even in the case of Ajay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
Kumar Choudhary (supra), the order of suspension was not
interfered with by the Apex Court, though the charge-sheet
in the said case was filed after three months since the date of
initial suspension of the delinquent employee.”
[emphasis supplied]
3. In view of the judgment cited supra, counsel appearing for the
petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the respondent. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner made representation on 17.9.2021 and the same
may be considered and pass appropriate orders.
4. In the light of the decision cited supra and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the
respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated
17.9.2021 and pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance
with law, by taking note of the decision reported in P.Kannan case cited
supra, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the
above directions. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9.6.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
Index:Yes/No
vaan
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udaiyarpalayam, Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
vaan
W.P.No.13590 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.12802 of 2022
Dated: 9.6.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
