Madras High Court

C.Paranthaman vs The District Collector on 4 September, 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 04.09.2023

                                                CORAM:
                            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                             Writ Petition No.8800 of 2020

                     C.Paranthaman                                                       ...Petitioner
                                                  Vs.
                     1. The District Collector,
                        Collectorate,
                        Tiruppur District.

                     2. The Sub-Collector,
                        Dharapuram,
                        Tiruppur District,

                     3. The Tahsildar,
                        Kangeyam,
                        Tiruppur District.                          ...Respondents



                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to
                     provide subsistence allowance to the Petitioner from 21.01.2019 to 30.06.2020
                     and revoke the suspension of the Petitioner dated 21.01.2019 in the light of the
                     judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union


                     1/11




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291.
                                  For Petitioner     :     Mr.K.Thilageswaran

                                     For Respondents   :   Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
                                                 Government Advocate

                                                   ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the

Respondent No.2 to provide subsistence allowance to the Petitioner from

21.01.2019 to 30.06.2020 and revoke the suspension of the Petitioner dated

21.01.2019 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay

Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed to the

post of Village Administrative Officer on 26.12.2014 and was working in the

above said post for the past 5 years without any blemish. Under these

circumstances, he carried out construction of his dwelling house, due to

personal enmity, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case in Crime No. 12

of 2019 before the Ayaduki Police Station and the said criminal case has no

connection with the official duty. However, he was suspended by the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent vide proceedings Ref.No.167/2019/B dated 21.01.2019. In the

suspension order, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner is entitled

for subsistence allowance, right from the date of suspension, but he was not

paid the same. Further, even after a passage of more than one year, the second

respondent has neither reviewed the order of suspension nor revoked the same.

Due to non payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner has submitted a

representation in person dated 25.02.2020, requesting to disburse the

subsistence allowance as well to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate

him in the service. But, the same was not considered till date. Therefore, the

petitioner has sent another representation dated 22.06.2023, requesting to

revoke the order of suspension and disburse the subsistence allowance. Since,

the representation being made, the second respondent has not taken any action.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second

respondent ought to have revoked the suspension of the petitioner by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis considering the representations for the reason that the petitioner has been kept

under suspension for a prolonged period of one year and five months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of

suspension is liable to be revoked under Rule 17(e)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Civil

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and the same is reads as follows:

“An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate”

Furthermore, in O.P.Gupta's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

that non-payment of subsistence allowance to the employee would amount to

slow poisoning of the employee. The same was also reiterated in the Paul

Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines case. In the instant case, the petitioner is not

paid subsistence allowance for the past one year and five months, till the date

of filing this writ petition. However, Subsequent to the filing of this writ

petition, the petitioner has been paid with the subsistence allowance by the

second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the following

Judgement to substantiate his contention and the said judgments are as follows:

(i) Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7

SCC 291.

(ii) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Vs. R.Balaji in W.A.No.68

of 2021

6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has filed

a counter affidavit dated 12.08.2021 and the relevant paragraph is extracted

hereunder:

“9. I submit that the petitioner, who had been registered an FIR against him is deemed to have been suspended by virtue of Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner and the advisory limitation to complete the disciplinary enquiry in 3 months period cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner, in view of the Rule 17(e)(5) which reads as follows:-

“5. Where a Government Servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (Whether inconnection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise), and any other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis disciplinary proceedings are commenced or trial against him during the continuance of that suspension and where the suspension of Government Servant is necessary in public interest as required under Clause (1), the authority competent to place 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.” From the above Rule, it is clear that suspension shall continue till the termination of all or any such criminal proceedings including disciplinary proceedings. Further Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) contemplates issuance of an order of suspension in public interest where a complaint against a government servant of any criminal offence is under investigation or pending trial.

In the light of the above Rules and the gravity of the charges against the petitioner, he has no legal right or locus standi.”

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

8. In the present case on hand, the petitioner was suspended by the

second respondent vide proceedings Ref.No.167/2019/B dated 21.01.2019 for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis his involvement in the criminal proceedings, which is registered in Crime

No.12 of 2019, before the Ayakudi Police Station. The petitioner has also

given representations to the second respondent dated 25.02.2020 and

22.06.2020, however, the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner has

approached this Court with this writ petition.

9. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case

of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291,

wherein it has held that:

“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”

Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Chairman-cum-

Managing Director Vs. R.Balaji in W.A.No.68 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021 has

held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis because there is a criminal case pending against him. For better appreciation,

the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“14. A thorough reading of the above said regulations would clearly show that the rule empowers the appellants herein, at any time, to revoke the suspension order. But, the appellants, have failed to consider the request for reviewing the order of prolonged suspension in spite of his representation.

15. Considering all these facts and in the light of the judgments quoted before the writ court as well as this court, the learned single Judge has held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just because there is a criminal case pending against him and has categorically came to a conclusion that the subsistence allowance should not be paid to him without extracting any work from him. Hence the learned single Judge directed the appellants to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 17.09.2019, in the light of the judgements referrred supra and pass orders in a time bound manner and has also made an observation that the second appellant may consider posting the petitioner is some non-

sensitive post and extract work from the petitioner rather than paying the subsistence allowance by keeping the petitioner idle. The learned single Judge also further directed the trial court to complete the criminal proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.

Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this court in W.A.No.68 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021, this Court is of

the considered view that the suspension of the petitioner has to be revoked by

the second respondent.

11. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed and the second

respondent is directed to revoke the suspension of the petitioner dated

21.01.2019, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. No costs.

04.09.2023