Madras High Court
K.Karuppasamy vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 19 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.13920 of 2021
K.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Annal Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
TANGEDCO, NPKRR Maligai,
No.144, Annal Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution),
Tirunelveli Region,
TANGEDCO,
Tirunelveli – 11.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
(R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated
19.09.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.16996 of 2021 by
GRSJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records in Memo No.007463/383/Adm/C.1/Suspension/2019 dated 17.07.2020
on the file of the 3rd respondent, quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent
to reinstate the petitioner in service.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.F.Mohamed Yousf
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl. Advocate General,
Asst. by Mr.S.Arivalagan,
Standing Counsel.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2.The writ petitioner is employed as Assistant Executive Engineer in
TANGEDCO. He was implicated in a trap case and Crime No.2 of 2020
registered on the file of the fourth respondent under Section 7(a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was also arrested and remanded to
custody. Following the same, the impugned order of suspension was issued on
17.07.2020. It is questioned in this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner took me through the
averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. His
pointed contention is that the suspension order has been continuing since
17.07.2020. This according to the petitioner would amount to prolonged and
protracted suspension. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs
Union of India). He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order of
suspension and reinstate the petitioner in service.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents submitted that the impugned order of suspension was rightly
passed since the petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap and he was also
arrested and remanded. In fact the employer has no other option but to suspend
such an employee from service. He would also state that 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. He also added that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
TANGEDCO employee implicated in a vigilance case cannot be reinstated in
service. He pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through materials
on record. The challenge to the suspension order has to be necessarily rejected.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the
petitioner was trapped and arrested by the fourth respondent on 16.07.2020 and
he was also remanded to judicial custody. The issuance of suspension order
was a matter of course.
6.At the same time, the petitioner cannot be kept under prolonged
suspension. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2019 made in
W.P.No.11967 of 2018 after referring to 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.16996 of 2021
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.”
7.I am however not inclined to straightaway issue such a direction
particularly because the learned Single Judge was swayed by the decision
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India),
which had however been explained in the recent Hon'ble Full Bench decision.
8.The petitioner is therefore permitted to make a fresh representation to
the third respondent. It is for the third respondent to consider the same. The
third respondent is directed to pass an order on the petitioner's representation
within a period of four weeks after the same is received.
9.The fourth respondent is also directed to send a report to the third
respondent regarding the progress of the criminal case and indicate the time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
limit within which it can be concluded. It is stated that the fourth respondent
had already filed the final report. It is for the jurisdictional Criminal Court to
take an immediate call as to whether cognizance is to be taken or not. If
cognizance is taken, the trial also shall be concluded expeditiously.
10.With this direction to the respondents 3 and 4, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
19.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.16996 of 2021
19.09.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
