Dismissed

R.Gunaseelan v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3203/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a suspension order against a public servant arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the suspension could not be deemed prolonged at that stage, as the facts contradicted precedents involving different offences.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondent directed to consider a fresh representation from the petitioner regarding revocation of suspension.

R.Gunaseelan Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.3203 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶4

R.Gunaseelan

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Vs. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thiruchirapalli. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension in No.A2/9073/2011 dated 10.03.2011 passed by the respondent and the consequential order of the respondent in Na.Ka.A2-9073-2011 dated 22.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to regularize the period of suspension with all service benefits.

¶8

For Petitioner:Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondent:Mr.M.Govindan

¶9

Special Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension in No.A2/9073/2011 dated 10.03.2011 passed by the respondent and the consequential order of the respondent in Na.Ka.A29073-2011 dated 22.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to regularize the period of suspension with all service benefits.

¶12

2.The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 10.03.2011, on the ground that the petitioner was detained in custody on 09.03.2011, for the offences under Sections 7 to 7.12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner filed an application to revoke the suspension and that was rejected by the respondent stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at that stage. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging the suspension order as well as the rejection of the petitioner's representation to revoke the suspension order.

¶13

3.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner was suspended on 10.03.2011, and nearly two years have lapsed and there is no progress in the criminal case and

¶14

¶15

therefore, the suspension is liable to be revoked and by the order of this Court in W.A.No.566 of 2011 between the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore -vs- S.Govindaraj and also the jundgment rendered by the Honourable Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22935 of 2009 in the matter of P.Sivalingam -vs- The Joint Director of School Education(Personnel), Chennai-6 and others .

¶16

4.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent and submitted that the suspension cannot be considered as prolonged one and the petitioner is involved an offence under the Provision of Corruption Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the revocation of suspension.

¶17

5.According to me, having regard to the facts of the case it cannot be stated at this stage as prolonged suspension and therefore the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment cannot be applied for the present case. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore the facts of those cases cannot be applied to the present case. Hence, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent for revocation of suspension and if any, representation is received, the respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with the law and pass suitable orders on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thiruchirapalli.

¶24