Madras High Court
S.Selvakumar vs The Superintending Engineer on 19 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
S.Selvakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintending Engineer,
O/o. The Superintending Engineer,
TNEB,
Tiruenlveli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tiruenlveli District – 11. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the Impugned Suspension Order in Memo
No.020776/322/Adm.IV/A.I/F.Confidential/2013 dated 01.08.2013 on the file
of the Respondent and consequential impugned rejection order in Ku.A.No.
013116/413/NiPi.4/Vu.1/Ko.Tha.Pa.Ni.Ve/dated.29.06.2019 on the file of
Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the
Respondent to revoke the Suspension order dated 01.08.2013 and reinstate the
petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer in light of the guidelines issued
under chapter -II, Section 2(3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees
Discipline and Appeal Regulations within the time stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash,
For M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Arivalagan,
Standing Counsel.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The writ petitioner is employed as Assistant Engineer in TANGEDCO.
He was implicated in Crime No.4 of 2013 registered on the file of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department,
Tiruenlveli Detachment dated 30.07.2013. He was suspended from service.
The order suspending the writ petitioner cannot be interfered with. In fact, he
was rightly suspended. When a person has been arrested in a trap case, the
suspension order has to follow as a matter of course. The only question that
arises for my consideration is whether the writ petitioner should continue to be
under suspension.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs Union of India). However, the learned standing counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
respondent would point out the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the decision
reported in (2022) 2 CTC 353 (FB) (P.Kannan Vs. Commissioner for
Municipal Administration and Others) had held that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar does not lay down an absolute
proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the
period of three months.
4.Looked at from any angle, keeping an employee under suspension for
nine years cannot be justified. After all the petitioner has only been implicated
in a criminal case. He is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. In
similar circumstance, a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2019
made in W.P.No.11967 of 2018 after referring earlier decisions had held as
follows:-
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
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/rp3/nfh.tp.&V.rp./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 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.”
Respectfully adopting the very same approach, I direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service and post him in a non-sensitive post.
5.The wit petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
19.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.6403 of 2022
19.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
