Madras High Court
G.Sakthi Premchander vs The Managing Director on 16 April, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
G.Sakthi Premchander ... Petitioner
VS.
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
C.M.D.A. Tower – 2, 4th Floor,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The General Manager (Wholesale and Admin)
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
C.M.D.A. Tower – 2, 4th Floor,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to direct the 1st respondent to call
for records pertaining to the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 in Procds.
No.M3/4183/2024, quash the same, reinstate the petitioner in service.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan
Standing Counsel
Page No.1 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari,
seeking records relating to an order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the first
respondent and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to
reinstate the petitioner in service.
2.It is the contention of the petitioner that he was serving as
the District Manager at TASMAC. On 08.03.2024, an FIR was registered
in Crime No.1 of 2024 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Thiruvarur District, against
the petitioner and another accused. According to the defacto
complainant, the bribe amount was allegedly demanded in connection
with a request for his transfer.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no
amount was recovered from the petitioner, and that the petitioner
happened to be present with A2 in the chambers merely incidentally. It
was further submitted that the petitioner had never made any demand for
Page No.2 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
money and was not entrusted with any authority regarding the transfer or
non-transfer of the defacto complainant. Nevertheless, the petitioner was
placed under suspension by way of the impugned order dated
21.06.2024.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary
Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary and another [Civil Appeal
No.1912 of 2015, dated 16.02.2015] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
issued directions concerning the prolonged suspension of public
servants. In the said judgment, the Court laid down guidelines for
examining such cases and emphasized the obligation of the competent
authority to periodically review the suspension, at least once every three
months. While the Court placed a caveat that these guidelines may not be
directly applicable in cases involving allegations of corruption, it
nevertheless stressed that continued payment of subsistence allowance
without extracting any work would impose a burden on the public
exchequer. The Court further observed that, where appropriate, the
Page No.3 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
suspended public servant could be considered for posting in a non-
sensitive position. Importantly, the Court also noted that no public post is
inherently non-sensitive; every post carries with it certain responsibilities
and must be approached with due seriousness.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
although the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25528 of 2024
was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.02.2025, it
was nevertheless recorded in the order that the petitioner was only
incidentally present in the chamber along with A2, and that no amount
was recovered from the petitioner.
6.Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
7.It is a matter of record that the petitioner has been under
continuous suspension for nearly ten months as on date. The respondents
are directed to consider the possibility of posting the petitioner in a
district outside Thiruvarur District, in a non-sensitive post. While doing
Page No.4 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
so, the respondents shall take into account the fact that no amount was
recovered from the petitioner, as also noted by the learned Single Judge
in Crl.O.P.No.25528 of 2024. The respondents shall further consider the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra) and arrive at a considered
decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
8.The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
16.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
TK
To
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
C.M.D.A. Tower – 2, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The General Manager (Wholesale and Admin)
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
C.M.D.A. Tower – 2, 4th Floor,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Page No.5 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
TK
W.P.NO.9126 OF 2025
16.04.2025
Page No.6 of6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
