Madras High Court

G.Shanmugathai vs Director Of School Education ... on 21 March, 2025

                                                                                           W.P.No.3543 of 2021


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                        ORDER RESERVED ON : 04.02.2025
                                      ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21.03.2025
                                                  CORAM

                                       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

                                               W.P.No.3543 of 2021
                                      and WMP.No's. 28914 of 2023 & 4035 of 2021

                G.Shanmugathai                                                           ...Petitioner
                                                     Vs.
                1. Director of School Education (Elementary)
                DPI Campus,
                College Road,
                Chennai- 600 006.

                2. The Chief Educational Officer,
                Tiruppur,
                Tiruppur District.

                3. The District Educational Officer,
                Udumalaipettai,
                Thiruppur District.

                4.The Block Educational Officer,
                Gudimangalam Block,
                Gudimangalam,
                Udumalaipettai Taluk,
                Thiruppur District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )
                1/12
                                                                                         W.P.No.3543 of 2021


                5. The Assistant Primary Education Officer,
                Kudimangalam,
                Udumalaipettai Taluk,
                Thiruppur District.
                                                                                       ...Respondents
                          Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to

                issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records connected with the impugned order

                passed by the 3rd Respondent in R.C.No:2446/B1/2019 dated 11.06.2019 and

                quash the same.


                          For Petitioner     : Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan
                                               for Mr.R.Rengaramanujam

                          For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazil
                                            Additional Government Pleader

                                                           ORDER

Writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.06.2019.

2. The petitioner was working as a Head Master and posted in the

Panchayat Union Primary School, Pannaikinaru. While so, a criminal complaint

was lodged by one Mohan, against the Limited Liability Partnership Company

named as Rich India Agro Tech Ltd. wherein, the petitioners husband was one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

of the partners in the said company. In pursuance of the criminal complaint, an

F.I.R was registered against the petitioner and her husband on 02.06.2019, under

Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the

Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)

Act, 1997. The petitioner was ranked as Accused No.6 and her husband was

ranked as Accused No.3. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on

04.06.2019. As the petitioner was imprisoned for more than 48 hours, she was

placed under suspension under Clause(2) of sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil

Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the impugned order of

rd the 3 respondent dated 11.06.2019. The petitioner was placed under suspension

for nearly 1 ½ years without the subsistence allowance being paid to her since

December-2019. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.(Ms).No.40, Personnel

and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 30.01.1996, the suspension of

the Government servant had to be reviewed every six months, but in the

petitioner's case, for nearly 1 ½ years, she was placed under suspension,

contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

Choudhary vs Union of India. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ

petition challenging the suspension order dated 11.06.2019.

3. The respondents filed a detailed counter stating inter alia, that, as the

petitioner was involved in a criminal case, it was not just and proper to permit

the petitioner to continue in Government service. The respondents citing rule

20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973, contended

that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute sincerity and devotion to duty.

The respondents contended that as the petitioner was involved in a criminal

case, the question of review of the order of suspension was not applicable to the

petitioner. The respondents in their counter further contended that the petitioner

was enlarged on bail, on condition that, she should appear before the Court and

sign weekly once at the office hours. The respondents contended that unless the

subject Court relaxed the bail condition, the petitioner could not be reinstated in

service. The respondents therefore prayed that there were no merits in the writ

petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India

and other Judgments annexed in the typed set of papers, submitted that the

prolonged suspension of the petitioner for 1 ½ years was against the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited Judgment. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was placed under

suspension vide impugned order on 11.06.2019, and the petitioner continued to

be under suspension for more than six years without any review or revocation of

the suspension order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the criminal proceedings are still pending and therefore the suspension of

the petitioner for about six years now, is unwarranted.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions

raised in the counter affidavit and on the basis of the instructions given at the

time of hearing, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against the petitioner under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

(Discipline and Appeal) rules, 1955, by issuing a charge memo. Enquiry was

conducted on the charge memo and the enquiry report was also filed. The

learned counsel further submitted that before passing the final orders, a show

cause notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation to

the enquiry report was issued on 03.02.2025, giving the petitioner 7 days time to

reply to the same. The learned counsel therefore submitted that under the facts

and circumstances, the writ petition deserved no merit and hence the same was

liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials

available on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was detained and kept in police custody on

03.06.2019, in connection to a criminal case filed by the Inspector of Police,

Economic Wing II, under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of IPC and TNPID Act,

1997. As the police custody of the petitioner exceeded 48 hours, the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

was issued with the impugned suspension order on 11.06.2019, invoking Clause

(2) of sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of Tamilnadu civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) rules, 1955. The petitioner aggrieved by the prolonged suspension,

without any review and failure to pay subsistence allowance has filed the above

writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

8. The law on prolonged suspension is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India,

reported in CDJ 2015 SC 129, paragraph 14 held as follows:

“14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a

Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if

within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is

not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the

Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet 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

concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within

or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

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 recognized

principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and

shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the

prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches

have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds 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.”

9. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by

Division Bench of this court in a case reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 398, wherein

it was held that keeping an employee for long period under suspension, without

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

paying the subsistence allowance and not extracting any work from him was not

proper. Taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ajay

Kumar Choudhary's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench refused to interfere with

the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the Appellant/Municipality to

reinstate the writ petitioner therein in service. On the facts of the present case,

even though the law is very clear on the subject of prolonged suspension, it is to

be seen if the prayer in the writ petition should be countenanced or not.

10. The petitioner was working as Head Mistress in the Panchayat Union

Primary School, Pannaikinaru and was placed under suspension for her

involvement in a criminal case. Challenging the suspension order the

petitioners filed the above writ petition. During the pendency of the writ

petition, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing the charge memo and

also enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report and a

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for her explanation to the

enquiry report. In view of the subsequent development, I am of the view that,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

instead of quashing the suspension order, it would be more appropriate to issue

a direction to the respondents to expedite the disciplinary proceedings.

11. Therefore, I am inclined to issue a following directions:

The petitioner is directed to give a reply to the show cause notice dated

03.02.2025, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order, if not already submitted. On receipt of the petitioners explanation to

the show cause notice, the respondents shall consider the same on merits and in

accordance with law and pass final orders within a period of two weeks

thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Writ

Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.03.2025

dsn/ah

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:25 pm )

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

1. Director of School Education (Elementary) DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

3. The District Educational Officer, Udumalaipettai, Thiruppur District.

4.The Block Educational Officer, Gudimangalam Block, Gudimangalam, Udumalaipettai Taluk, Thiruppur District.

5. The Assistant Primary Education Officer, Kudimangalam, Udumalaipettai Taluk, Thiruppur District.