Madras High Court
D.Gopinath vs The District Revenue Officer on 14 June, 2022
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 14328 of 2022
D.Gopinath ..Petitioner
Vs.
The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 31.12.2021 to
review the order of suspension issued by the respondent in A2/19107/2017
dated 01.08.2018 and to reinstate the petitioner into service even in any non
sensitive post with all consequential benefits, within a time frame as fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr. T.Chezhiyan, AGP
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
ORDER
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petitooner
while working as Revenue Inspector, based on a police complaint, he was
trapped and arrested by the Vigilance and Anti corruption department on
28.07.2017 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was placed
under suspension with effect from the date of arrest i.e. on 28.07.2017 and no
charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case so far. The petitioner had
made representation to the respondent on 26.02.2018 to review the order of
suspension and to revoke the same and to reinstate him into service in any
non sensitive post.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No. 26714 of 2018. This
Court by order dated 18.08.2017 directed the respondents to consider the
representation and pass appropriate orders, but the respondents had rejected
the claim made by the petitioner. Hence filed the present writ petition.
3. The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner to review the
order of suspension will be considered by the authorities concerned.
4. Heard both sides perused the materials available on record.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been placed under suspension from 01.08.2017 and the
respondent had rejected the petitioner's claim for revocation of suspension by
referring to the pendency of criminal case in S.C. No 5 of 2019 pending on
the file of Special Court (CJM) for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Tiruvannamalai.
6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and
21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022, has held in detail with regard to the order
of suspension and answered as under:
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
extension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
(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 view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court cited supra and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been
placed under suspension for more than five years, this Court is inclined to
issue directions to the respondents as follows;
i. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 31.12.2021 seeking review of the suspension order and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, taking note of the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Full Bench cited supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
ii. The Special Court (CJM) for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Tiruvannamalai is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case
in S.C.No. 5 of 2019, as early as possible preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. The petitioner is directed to cooperate for the enquiry in both the
disciplinary proceedings as well as in criminal case.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
14.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ak
To
1. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai
2. The Special Court (CJM)
for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Tiruvannamalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14328 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
ak
W.P.No. 14328 of 2022
14.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
