Madras High Court
N.Selvam vs The Registrar General on 21 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
2025:MHC:453
W.P.No.33787 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.33787 of 2024
N.Selvam,
S/o.K.Nagappan,
C/o.S.Jayakala,
W/o.Shanmugam
D.No.4/102-A, Near BPC Petrol Bunk,
Mannargudi Salai,
Vilakkudi Post - 614 715.
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk,
Thiruvarur District. ... Petitioner
versus
1.The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvarur.
4.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruthuraipoondi. ... Respondents
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33787 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 4th respondents to
reinstate the petitioner after the revocation of suspension order and pay the
petitioner 75% of subsistence allowances for the period from 01.07.2017 to
till date.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Sasikala
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arjun Suresh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to revoke the
suspension and reinstate the petitioner in service and further pay 75% of the
subsistence allowance for the period from 01.07.2017 to till date.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by the
proceedings of the learned District Judge, Thiruvarur, dated 12.12.2012 and
he had joined duty in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court,
Needamangalam on 13.12.2012 and his services also came to be
regularised. He was transferred to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court at Valangaiman where he joined duty on 03.05.2013 and
thereafter, he was promoted as Record Clerk and posted at Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Magistrate Court No.II at Mannargudi on 05.03.2016 and further transferred
as Record Clerk to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi on
27.08.2016.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was arrested on a false
complaint on 30.11.2016 and detained for more than 48 hours in respect of
the offences for an accident that took place on 11.06.2011, when he was
working temporarily as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam, for which a criminal case was registered in
Crime No.294 of 2011 by the Thiruvarur Town Police and the charges taken
on file in C.C.No.12 of 2013.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he was suspended
on 09.12.2016, he had been paid subsistence allowance only for a period of
7 months from 30.11.2016 to 30.06.2017 and thereafter, the subsistence
allowance had not been paid for more than 7 years from 01.07.2017. The
petitioner claims to have appeared before the fourth respondent on
01.07.2017 and had furnished necessary certificate as per Rule 53(2) of the
Fundamental Rules to the effect that he has not been employed anywhere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and he has also been residing in the headquarters. He had also submitted
several representations on 01.07.2017, 05.01.2018, 19.11.2018, 19.02.2021,
27.04.2023 and 06.10.2023 requesting to grant 75% of the subsistence
allowance and also further requested to reinstate him in service.
5. It is also averred that the criminal case in C.C.No.12 of 2013
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, was concluded and by
judgment dated 23.01.2015, the petitioner suffered conviction and was
sentenced for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (15 counts), 338 (5
counts) and 304A IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in C.A.No.11
of 2015 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur,
was also dismissed on 10.11.2016 and the further revision preferred before
this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016 also came to be dismissed on
31.01.2022.
6. The petitioner had further preferred an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1072 of 2023 and the case is
pending. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Driver in the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam, on 17.05.2011 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was discharged from service on 11.06.2011 for the charges pertaining to the
accident that took place on 11.06.2011 and thereafter only, he was
appointed in the Judicial Department as Office Assistant on 13.12.2012, as
such the said criminal case could no way be connected with the service in
the Judicial Department.
7. As per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,
1981 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1981”], as a suspended employee,
he is entitled to subsistence allowance of 50% for the first 6 months and
after that period he is entitled to 75% of the subsistence allowance. In view
of the suspension and since his representation dated 27.04.2023 made in
this regard did not evoke any response, the petitioner had come up with the
above Writ Petition.
8. Mrs.S.Sasikala, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that when the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated
09.12.2016 on the ground that he was arrested and was under custody for
more than 48 hours, the suspension order itself stated that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would be entitled for subsistence allowance as per the Fundamental Rules
53(1).
9. It is her further contention that the petitioner had been staying
in the headquarters and had also submitted necessary certificates to the
effect that he was not employed anywhere as per Rule 53(2) of the
Fundamental Rules and when initially the subsistence allowance was paid
for a period of 7 months, for no reason the allowance has not been paid
thereafter from 01.07.2017. It is also her contention that the petitioner was
kept under prolonged suspension and the suspension ought to be revoked
and the petitioner has to be reinstated into service even on the ground of
non-payment of the subsistence allowance.
10. The learned counsel also by producing the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 07.01.2025 in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1072 of 2023 contended
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reduced the sentence from one year and
had imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- which the petitioner had duly complied
with and receipt was also produced in this regard evidencing the payment to
the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority made on 06.02.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Per contra, Mr.S.Arjun Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents by producing the proceedings of the learned Principal
District Judge, Thiruvarur, addressed to the Registrar General first
respondent dated 14.11.2024, contended that the petitioner was placed
under suspension and pursuant to which, a charge memo dated 28.04.2017
was framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereafter referred to as “the Rules, 1955”] and after
receiving his reply, the enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry report has
been submitted holding the charges proved and after receipt of the further
response from the delinquent petitioner, the file is pending before the
second respondent for passing order on the disciplinary proceedings.
12. He further, by relying on the report, contended that since
appeals were pending before this Court and before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the subsistence allowance was not paid and since the petitioner has
not produced any orders from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal
preferred by him, he has not been sanctioned with the subsistence allowance
and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Heard the rival submissions of the respective counsels and
perused the materials placed on record.
14. The petitioner was originally appointed as Office Assistant on
12.12.2012 and he joined duty in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Needamangalam on 13.12.2012 and thereafter, pursuant
to the transfers to other courts, he was promoted as Record Clerk on
05.03.2016 and was working in the Judicial Magistrate Court at
Thiruthuraipoondi from 27.08.2016.
15. Only when the petitioner did not report for duty from
30.11.2016, on coming to know that the petitioner was arrested and lodged
in the prison to undergo sentence imposed on him, the fourth respondent by
order dated 09.12.2016 passed orders suspending the petitioner on the
ground that he has been under custody for more than 48 hours. The
suspension order reads that the petitioner will be entitled for the subsistence
allowance under Fundamental Rule 53(1) during the period of suspension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. After placing the petitioner under suspension, initially the
subsistence allowance was paid for a period of 7 months for the period from
30.11.2016 to 30.06.2017 and thereafter the subsistence allowance has not
been paid. As per the Fundamental Rule 53(1)(a), a Government servant
who is placed or deemed to have been placed or continues to be under
suspension shall be entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance at an
amount equal to half of the pay last drawn by the Government servant and
in addition, dearness allowance if admissible on the basis of half of the pay
last drawn. As per Fundamental Rule 53(2), no payment under sub-rule (1)
shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he
is not engaged in any other employment, business or profession.
17. The suspension order itself provides for payment of
subsistence allowance as contemplated under Fundamental Rule 53(1) and
the same has also been paid initially for a period of 7 months. The petitioner
claims to have submitted necessary certificates as required under
Fundamental Rule 53(2) which is also not disputed by the respondents.
However, it is only the stand of the respondents that since appeals were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pending before this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the subsistence
allowance was not paid.
18. The payment of subsistence allowance is also governed by the
provisions of The Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,
1981. Section 3 deals with the payment of subsistence allowance which is
extracted hereunder:-
“3. Payment of subsistence allowance.-
(1) An employee who is placed under suspension shall, during
the period of such suspension, be entitled to receive payment from
the employer as subsistence allowance, an amount equal to fifty
percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing
immediately before suspension, for the first ninety days reckoned
from the date of such suspension:
Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety
days but does not exceed one-hundred and eighty days, the employee
shall be entitled to receive, after the said period of ninety days, a
subsistence allowance equal to seventy-five percentum of the wages
which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension:
Provided also that where the enquiry or criminal proceeding
is prolonged beyond the period of ninety days for reasons directly
attributable to the employee, the subsistence allowance shall, for the
period exceeding ninety days, be reduced to fifty percentum of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wages, which the employee was drawing immediately before his
suspension.
(2) An employee shall not be entitled to receive any
subsistence allowance if he accepts any other employment during
the period of hissuspension in any establishment other than the
establishment where he had been working immediately before his
suspension.
(3) An employee shall not, in any event, be liable to refund or
forfeit any part of the subsistence allowance admissible to him under
sub-section (1) :
Provided that where the employee is exonerated of the charge
based on which his suspension was ordered, the subsistence
allowance paid to him for any period shall be adjusted against the
full wages admissible to him for the period of suspension.
(4) The subsistence allowance under sub-section (1) shall be
paid by the employer to the employee on the date or dates on which
the wages due to the employee, but for his suspension, would have
become payable.”
19. In view of Fundamental Rules 53(1) and Section 3 of the Act,
1981, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance on
the dates on which the wage due to the employee but for his suspension
would have become payable. As per Section 3(4), it is mandatory on the
part of the employer to pay subsistence allowance as contemplated under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sub-section 1. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the
subsistence allowance was not paid since an appeal is pending before this
Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be accepted as it cannot be a
ground to deny the payment of subsistence allowance.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdamba Prasad
Shukla Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (7) SCC 90, has held that
payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of right and not a bounty. The
payment of subsistence allowance has been considered as a right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the petitioner is
entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance along with arrears so long
as the petitioner continues to be placed under suspension. However since
the petitioner has not disclosed the conviction suffered by him and
continued to be service till 2016, the subsistence allowance shall be resisted
to 50% of the last drawn salary.
21. It is an unfortunate case where the respondents have not
understood the appropriate proceedings that are to be initiated as against the
employee under the Rules, 1955. In fact, the proceedings of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur dated 14.11.2024 and the submissions
made on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents make it
abundantly clear that the respondents have not proceeded in the right
direction.
22. Before dwelling into the further facts of the present case, it is
appropriate to refer to the procedures contemplated under the Rules, 1955.
Rule 17(e) stipulates the conditions under which a member of a service be
placed under suspension.
23. For easy reference, Rule 17(e) is extracted hereunder:-
“17(e): Conditions under which a member of a Service be placed
under suspension.-
(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension
from service, where-
(i) a disciplinary Proceedings against him is
contemplated or is pending; or
(ii) a case against him in respect of any criminal
offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
(2) A Government servant who is detained in custody whether
on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty-
eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under this rule.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under
suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and
the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other
directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have
continued in force on and from the date of the original order of
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in
force until further orders.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon a Government Servant is set
aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a
decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a
consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a
further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty
of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally
imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been
placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of
the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement
and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.
Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless
it is intended to meet a situation where the Court of law has passed
an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits
of the case.
(5) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to
have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary
proceedings or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings
are commenced or any other criminal complaint is under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation or trial against him during the continuance of that
suspension, and where the suspension of the Government servant is
necessary in public interest as required under clause (1), the
authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons
to be recorded by 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.
(6) 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.”
24. The above rule makes it clear that only when a disciplinary
proceeding is contemplated or pending or an investigation or trial for any
criminal offence is pending, a Government servant having been detained in
custody for a period longer than 48 hours and in other conditions as set out
above, the authorities could place the Government servant under suspension
by invoking Rule 17(e).
25. Part III of the Rules, 1955 deals with Discipline and Penalties.
Rule 8 lists out the penalties that can be imposed upon a Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
servant which starts from censure to dismissal from service. Rule 8(i), (ii),
(iii), (v) and (ix) are minor punishments and Rule 8(iv), (vi), (vii), (viii) are
major punishments. For imposing a minor punishment as set out in Rule 8,
the procedure to be initiated against the government servant is contemplated
under Rule 17(a) and to impose a major penalty as specified in sub-rules
(iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8, the procedure is contemplated under
Rule 17(b) of the Rules. When a major penalty is sought to be imposed,
then the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) mandates issuance of a
charge memo and receipt of the reply. Thereafter, an enquiry officer has to
be appointed and on receipt of the enquiry report, several procedures are set
out before imposing the major punishment.
26. However, in case a Government servant is convicted on a
criminal charge by the court, then the proceedings to be initiated against the
delinquent is set out under Rule 17(c)(1). Rule 17(c)(1) is extracted
hereunder:-
“17(c)(1). The requirements of sub-rule (b) shall not apply
where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any such
penalty as is referred to in clause (i) of that sub-rule on the basis of
facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court (whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or not he has been sentenced at once by such court to any
punishment); but he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
making any representation that he may desire to make and such
representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before the
order imposing the penalty is passed.”
27. As such when once a Government servant suffers a conviction
in a criminal Court, whether or not he has been sentenced at once by such
court to any punishment, the requirements of procedure as contemplated
under Rule 17(b) shall not apply, even if a major penalty is proposed to be
imposed but the delinquent shall be given only a reasonable opportunity of
making a representation that he may desire to make if any which alone shall
be taken into consideration before imposing the penalty.
28. In a disciplinary proceeding, particularly under Rule 17(b)
where an enquiry officer is appointed to enquire into the charges, he
performs a quasi-judicial function who has to independently assess the
materials and evidences to give a finding on the charges. Strict rules of
evidence do not apply in the disciplinary proceedings and the charges as
against the delinquent need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt but it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sufficient to prove the charges based on preponderance of probabilities. If
there is some evidence that is available to establish the charge, that is
sufficient to hold the charges as proved and it is not the evidence that is to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
29. On the contrary, on the trial of charges before the criminal
court, the charges as against the accused have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt to convict the accused. Therefore, even if the charges in
the disciplinary proceedings are proved and a punishment is imposed, that
may not be sufficient for proving charges before the Criminal Court as the
proof that is required in the disciplinary proceedings is only preponderance
of probabilities but in the trial before the criminal court, the charges have to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore when once the charges
before the criminal court are proved beyond reasonable doubt and a
conviction has been imposed as against the government servant, then there
is no possibility for the government servant to get himself exonerated from
a charge in the disciplinary proceedings, even if any initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30. Only under such circumstances, Rule 17(c) sets out the
procedures to be followed where a Government servant is convicted on a
criminal charge in a criminal court. Therefore when once the government
servant suffers a conviction, all that is required under Rule 17(c) is that the
delinquent shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation as he may desire and that has to be considered before
imposing the major penalty.
31. In the instant case, the petitioner while he was working as a
Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam,
was responsible for the accident caused, in which one person died, 5
passengers sustained grievous injuries, 15 passengers sustained simple
injuries for which a case was registered in Crime No.294 of 2011 on the file
of the Thiruvarur Town Police Station for the offences under Sections
304A, 279, 337 (15 counts), 338 (5 counts) of IPC. The charge sheet was
taken on file in C.C.No.15 of 2012 which was transferred to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in C.C.No.12 of 2013. After trial, by
judgment dated 23.01.2015, the petitioner was convicted and sentence of
one year was imposed apart from fine of Rs.15,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32. Immediately, after the petitioner suffered conviction and was
sentenced by the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, in
C.C.No.12 of 2013 on 23.01.2015, the respondents ought to have initiated
proceedings under Rule 17(c) by affording him a reasonable opportunity of
making a representation and could have passed the major penalty after
considering his representation. But no such proceeding has been initiated
and in fact the petitioner was allowed to continue in service even post-
conviction.
33. The petitioner had filed an appeal in C.A.No.11 of 2015 before
the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur and even though the sentence
alone was suspended pending appeal, ultimately the criminal appeal came to
be dismissed on 10.11.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence of the
trial court. Pursuant to the appellate court order, the petitioner was secured
and remanded to custody to undergo the sentence imposed. Only since the
petitioner did not report for duty from 30.11.2016, on coming to know that
the petitioner was arrested and remanded in view of the appellate court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decision, the fourth respondent passed order dated 09.12.2016 placing the
petitioner under suspension.
34. The suspension order reads that the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced by the trial court by judgment dated 23.01.2015 and further
the appellate court had confirmed the conviction and sentence on
10.11.2016 and after referring that, the suspension order is passed on the
ground that the petitioner was under custody for more than 48 hours from
30.11.2016 and further states that he will be entitled for the subsistence
allowance under Fundamental Rule 53(1).
35. As referred earlier, only where an enquiry is contemplated or
the petitioner was under custody for more than 48 hours in view of any
criminal offence or for any other reasons as set out under Rule 17(e), the
suspension order could be passed. When the fourth respondent came to note
that already the petitioner had suffered conviction and sentenced by the trial
court which has also been confirmed by the appellate court, then what was
required was to only communicate to the appropriate authority for initiating
proceedings under Rule 17(c) for imposing the major penalty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36. Instead a suspension order was passed and after paying the
subsistence allowance for a period of 7 months, till today the petitioner
continues to be placed under suspension. But however, the subsistence
allowance has not been paid thereafter only on the ground that the appeals
are pending.
37. In fact, from the report of the learned Principal District Judge,
Thiruvarur, it is unfortunate to note that the respondents decided to initiate
proceedings under Rule 17(b) and also issued a charge memo to the
petitioner on 28.04.2017 for which the petitioner had replied on 22.05.2017.
Not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry
report has been submitted on 30.01.2024 holding that the charges are
proved. The report was forwarded to the petitioner and the delinquent had
submitted further representation on 19.02.2024. Pursuant to which the file
has been forwarded to the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur and
is pending till date for passing orders under Rule 17(b) proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
38. As the respondents have not understood the proceedings that
ought to have been initiated as against the delinquent in a proper
perspective, when the respondents could have initiated proceedings under
Rule 17(c) and imposed the major penalty at least when the conviction
suffered by the petitioner was made known on 09.12.2016, however they
chose to place the petitioner under suspension and also further decided to
initiate proceedings under Rule 17(b) for imposing a major penalty.
39. Now in view of the same, the petitioner who had been under
suspension all along from 2016 to till date is entitled for the payment of
subsistence allowance till the orders are passed in the disciplinary
proceedings. It is also relevant to note that the appeal filed by the petitioner
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 07.01.2025.
Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted
hereunder:-
“6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length
and perused the facts. Indeed, the act of negligence of the appellant
is gruesome but the mitigating circumstances after incidence
indicate infliction of penalty by an act of God giving sufferance to
him for whole life. As such, in the peculiar facts, we deem it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appropriate to commute the sentence of one year up to the sentence
already undergone and imposing the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh) in addition, modifying the sentence as awarded by the
trial Court, confirmed by the impugned judgment.
7) In view of the above, the findings of conviction stands
confirmed and the sentence as directed is reduced to the sentence
already undergone imposing fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) in addition. The amount of fine be deposited with the State
Legal Services Authority within a period of one month. On such
deposit the authority may utilize the same for the purpose of victim
compensation payable in appropriate cases.
8) We make it clear that in case of any default in deposit of
the amount as directed, the sentence would revive.”
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the conviction imposed
on the petitioner but however, modified the sentence alone from one year to
the period of sentence already undergone (114 days) by imposing a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- in addition.
41. When the conviction suffered by the petitioner before the trial
court as early as on 23.01.2015 has been confirmed in the appeal, revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner who was able to be in
service till 2016, even thereafter continues to remain under suspension till
date only due to the reason that appropriate proceedings have not been
initiated by the respondents.
42. Even now the respondents have not realized the mistake as they
had not initiated appropriate proceedings under Rule 17(c) but still they are
harping on the orders to be passed by them in the proceedings initiated by
them under Rule 17(b).
43. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to direct the
respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period during which
the petitioner continues to remain under suspension but in view of the
conviction suffered, the prayer of the petitioner to reinstate him into service
does not arise.
44. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the
following directions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) The petitioner is entitled for the payment of subsistence
allowance @ 50% of the last drawn pay prior to suspension,
from the date of suspension till orders are passed by the
respondents either under Rule 17(b) which proceedings has
already been initiated and pending for orders or any orders to
be passed by initiating proceedings under Rule 17(c) and the
arrears, if any, shall be calculated and be paid within a period
of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(ii) The respondents are directed to pass final orders either in
the pending proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) or in the
proceedings to be initiated under Rule 17(c) within a period of
six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The Registrar General and all the Principal District Judges
or any other District Judicial Officers who are the appropriate
authority for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, wherever a
delinquent suffers conviction by the trial court, shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
immediately initiate proceedings under Rule 17(c) of the Rules,
1955, within a period of three (3) months from the date of
judgment, unless and until the conviction itself is stayed by any
appellate court.
(iv) Wherever proceedings are initiated under Rule 17(c),
appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of eight (8)
weeks by following the procedures as set out under Rule 17(c).
(v) The first respondent Registrar General is directed to
communicate the order to all the Districts Courts.
45. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
21.02.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvarur.
4.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruthuraipoondi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Order made in
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
