Madras High Court
G.Ashok Kumar vs S.Natarajan on 8 March, 2022
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
G.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner
versus
1. S.Natarajan, I.A.S.
Principal Secretary/Transport
Commissioner,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2. P.Jaishankar
Regional Transport Officer,
Pudukottai. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of
the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1655 of 2020.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed that the order passed by this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.1655 of 2020 dated 29.11.2021 has been
violated by the first respondent.
2. This Court, by order dated 29.11.2021, directed the
respondents to take a decision on the petitioner's representation seeking
revocation of suspension, in the light of the Judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India,
reported in 2015 2 SCC 291. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the
first respondent, by his proceedings dated 04.02.2022, considered the
representation of the petitioner, however, rejected the request of the
petitioner. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“On consideration of the individual's
representation, in the light of the rule 17(e)(5) of TNCS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
(D&A) Rules and the Government Orders
“Where a Government servant is suspended
or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in
connection with any disciplinary proceedings or
otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings
are commenced or any other criminal complaint is
under investigation or trial against him during the
continuance of that suspension, and where the
suspension of the Government servant is necessary
in public interest as required under clause (1), the
authority competent to place him under suspension
may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing,
direct that the Government servant shall continue to
be under suspension until the termination of all or
any of such proceedings including departmental
proceedings taken on the basis of facts which led to
the conviction in a Criminal Court”.
In the G.O.Ms.No.211, P&AR(N) Department,
dated 27.02.1980, para 5(ix) states as follows:- The time
limits for suspension will not be applicable to cases of
Government servants against whom criminal proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
have been initiated.
Moreover, the G.O.Ms.No.40, P&AR(N)
Department, dated 30.01.1996 states that the suspension
once ordered does not terminate unless revoked with
reference to the provisions of Rule 17(e)(6) or in exercise
of the power of review under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. A separate
order for extension of suspension period need not be
issued.
In view of the above position, I, the Transport
Commissioner, hereby reject the representation made by
Thiru.G.Ashok Kumar, Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-
I(U/S), dated 05.12.2021 in the light of above said rule
17(e)(5) of TNCS (D&A) Rules and as per the
instructions issued in the G.O.Ms.No.211, P&AR(N)
Department, dated 27.02.1980, para 5(ix) and also in
G.O.Ms.No.40, P&AR(N) Department, dated
30.01.1996.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
3. The observation of the first respondent is that a separate order
for extension of suspension period need not be issued. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the observation of the first
respondent is against the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in
2015 2 SCC 291.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 2 SCC 291, held that
suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this
period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee and if the Memorandum of
Charges/Chargesheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the
extension of the suspension.
5. The said proposition is also extracted in paragraphs 5 and 9 of
the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1655
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
of 2020. The first respondent, though stated so, has assigned reasons
for not revoking the suspension. Therefore, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the Contempt Petition. However, this Court is of the view
that the first respondent ought to have avoided this type of observation
in future.
6. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs.
08.03.2022
ogy
To
1. Thiru.Shivalingam,
The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul.
2. Tmt.Bhama,
The Administrator,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Employees' Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
Cont.P.(MD)No.380 of 2022
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
