Madras High Court
V.Senthil Kumar vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2022
1 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.25929 of 2019 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.22452 & 22454 of 2019
V.Senthil Kumar,
Revenue Inspector (Under Suspension). ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for
the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2 nd
respondent in his proceedings Roc.A2/16988/2011 dated
23.6.2011 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Ms.Geethanjali,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents: Mr.R.Sureshkumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
2 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Junior
Assistant on 22.02.1993 in Sivagangai District. He became an
Assistant in the year 1997 and then posted as Revenue
Inspector. He was implicated in a Vigilance case. Crime No.8
of 2011 was registered against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988. He was also suspended from service vide
Order 23.06.2011. The petitioner has been representing for
revoking the order of suspension. Since it has not been
considered, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
questions the order of suspension. This contention has to be
necessarily rejected. The writ petitioner was implicated in a
vigilance case and he was also arrested. Therefore, the
respondents were justified in passing the order of suspending
the petitioner from service. The Question that calls for
consideration is whether the petitioner should continue to be
placed under suspension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents relied on the order dated
02.09.2020 made in W.A.No.599 of 2020 (Tamil Nadu
Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO), Chennai V. A.Srinivasan) and contended
that in vigilance cases, the concept of prolonged suspension is
not applicable.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the materials on record.
6. The writ petitioner in the aforesaid case was
employed in TANGEDCO. Following his implication in a
Vigilance case, he was suspended on 13.01.2017. He filed
W.P.No.3398 of 2020 seeking revocation. The writ petition
was allowed by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar
Choudhary V. Union of India). The employer went on writ
appeal. The Hon'ble First Bench after a detailed consideration
concluded as follows:-
“ Likewise, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
Court in R.Elumalai V. District Collector, [2020
SCC Online Mad 1472, considered the Ajay Kumar
Choudhary case and the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in Government of NCT of Delhi (cited supra) and
concluded that in cases relating to suspension for
alleged involvement in graft charges leading to a
criminal trial, interference with the suspension order
on the basis that the suspension period exceeded three
months is not justifiable. ”
The Hon'ble First Bench had only held that where an
employee has been suspended for corruption, the ratio laid
down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary case is not applicable.
However, the facts obtaining in the present case cannot be
lost sight of. The petitioner is under suspension for 11 long
years. It is true that the allegation against him is grave and
serious. But the elementary principle of jurisprudence is that
the accused presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. A
learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2019
made in W.P.No.11967 of 2018 (S.Raju V. The Chairman,
Thamizh Naadu Electricity Board, Chennai ) after
referring to earlier decisions had held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
“14.In same lines, various High Courts
and particularly this High Court have passed
numerous orders setting aside the suspension
order and directed the authorities concerned to
post the suspended officers concerned in non-
sensitive posts. This was done keeping in mind
public interest, as payment of huge subsistence
allowance without extracting work from the
employee concerned, drains public exchequer.
Moreover, the person accused is entitled to
speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Therefore, in order to uphold the public
interest and also constitutional imperatives, the
suspension orders have been interfered with by
the Courts.
15.In view of the above, this Court has
no hesitation in allowing the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated
25.06.2016 in bearing its Ref. No. F. M. vz;.
008003 /1530 / ep.Nk / eph;.3 /
rp.3/Nfhtp/&/2016 and the reply dated
07.11.2017 bearing its Memo.No.10723/
329/Adm.3/C.2/F.DV & AC/Suspension/2017
passed by the 4th respondent are hereby set
aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to
reinstate the petitioner with all attendant
benefits. While reinstating the petitioner, the
2nd respondent may ensure that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
shall not be posted to any sensitive post. The
order shall be complied with by the 2nd
respondent within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
7. Looked at from any angle, keeping a person under
suspension for 11 years and 4 months certainly has to be
viewed as a case of prolonged suspension. The petitioner is
being paid 75% of pay last drawn by him towards subsistence
allowance. Instead the employer can provide some work by
posting him in a non-sensitive post. I direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service and post him in non-
sensitive post. Such an order will be passed by the second
respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands
allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note : Issue order copy on 27.10.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 W.P.(MD)NO.25929 OF 2019
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
W.P.(MD)No.25929 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
