Madras High Court
R. Selvam vs The District Collector on 12 October, 2023
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
and
W.M.P. No. 27829 of 2021
R. Selvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashing the
impugned order dated 26.06.2021 of the first respondent vide Rc. No.
906203/AP.1(2)/2021 confirming the order of punishment of postponement of
increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect passed by the
respondents 2 and 3 and consequently, direct the first respondent to promote the
petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) on par with his
batch mates recruited for the year 1994-95 with appropriate seniority.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Palanisamy
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the impugned order dated 26.06.2021
passed by the first respondent vide Rc. No. 906203/AP.1(2)/2021 confirming the
order of punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without
cumulative effect passed by the respondents 2 and 3 and consequently, direct the
first respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of
Police (DSP) on par with his batch mates recruited for the year 1994-95 with
appropriate seniority.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who
was working as Village Administrative Officer at P.Settihalli Village was
suspended on 29.06.2021; the third respondent has registered F.I.R against the
petitioner in No.02/AC/2021 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018 and the said proceedings are still pending; no
charge memo has been issued by the third respondent within three months and
hence, there is no impediment to reinstate the petitioner into service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary -vs- Union of
India in [(2015) 7 SCC 291]. The relevant paragraph of the said case is extracted
hereunder:-
“ 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension
order should not extend beyond three months if within this
period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served
on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be
passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in
hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned
to any department in any of its offices within or outside the
State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation
against him. The Government may also prohibit him from
contacting any person, or handling records and documents till
the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of
human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also
preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We
recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
reluctant to quash proceedings on the ground of delay, and to
set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a
limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in
prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance
Commission that pending a criminal investigation,
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands
superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
The above position has been followed and approved in the various subsequent
judgments of this Court and other High Courts.
4. In the case on hand also, the respondents does not seem to have given any
extension of suspension order. However, the petitioner has filed the writ without
making any representation to the Department for reinstatement. Hence, the
petitioner is at liberty to give representation to the respondents and on receipt of the
same, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary -vs- Union of India in [(2015) 7 SCC 291] within a time frame.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed with a direction to the
respondents to consider the representation to be made by the petitioner and dispose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
the same in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -vs- Union of India in [(2015) 7 SCC 291], within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.10.2023
skr
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
skr
W.P. No. 26357 of 2021
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
