Dismissed

The Director of Agriculture v. B.Ramesh, M.Sc., (Ag)

Madras HC17 Feb 2017WA/143/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by Agriculture Department officials against reinstatement of a suspended officer. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, noting the respondent's criminal acquittal and condemning selective suspension of an employee while ignoring others in similar circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Reinstate the respondent into service with all back wages; treat period of suspension as on duty on par with three other persons.

The Director of Agriculture Vs B.Ramesh, M.Sc., (Ag) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.02.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.A.No.143 OF 2016 & C.M.P.Nos.1875 & 7723 of 2016

¶7

1.The Director of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai – 5 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture Lawley Road, Coimbatore 13. .. Appellants/Respondents -vsB.Ramesh .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.06.2015 rendered in W.P.No.10107 of 2015.

¶9

WP.No.10107 of 2015:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of Writ Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to the 1st respondent proceedings viz. DCS.1/(1)/ 39874/ 2014 dated 28.3.2014 and further proceedings DCS/1/(1)/ 39874/ 2014 dated 21.7.2014 through 2nd respondent Memo in Ref. A2/13991/13(1) dated 2.8.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages treating the period of suspension as on duty on par with three other persons

¶10

For Appellants : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi Spl.Govt. Pleader

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.V.Chokalingam

¶12

***********

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

J U D G E M E N T

¶15

NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.

¶16

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the Director of Agriculture and the Joint Director of Agriculture, aggrieved by the Judgment and order rendered on 8 th June, 2015 in W.P.No.10107 of 2015, which is instituted by the respondent herein.

¶17

2.The Writ Petitioner/respondent herein while working as an Agricultural Officer has been placed under suspension, pending investigation. It appears, one Shir M.Mahalingam lodged a complaint with the Police alleging a cyber crime committed by the respondent, by creating a false I.D. In the complaint, names of three persons, who are all Government Servants, have been mentioned. As it turned out, only the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶18

3.The learned single Judge after critically analysing the fact situation prevailing, has come to the conclusion that the approach adopted by the present appellants herein in selectively suspending the employees while leaving out the other unscathed, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power available with them. The learned Single Judge therefore, had no hesitation to allow the Writ Petition.

¶19

4.Only with a view to satisfy ourselves, we have secured a translated copy of the complaint lodged by Shri M.Mahalingam with the Police on 19 th February, 2014 and we have perused the F.I.R. bearing No.12 of 2014 dated 19 th February, 2014, on the file of the Kovai City P.S. Crime Branch. We have also perused the contents of the charge sheet filed with regard to Crime No.12 of 2014. The writ petitioner/ respondent was arrayed as A1. However, the Criminal Court has acquitted him, by its Judgment dated 11 th January, 2017, in C.C.No.14 of 2015, for the failure of the prosecution to prove the commission of crime by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is therefore clear to us that the very basis which enabled the appellants before us to place the writ petitioner under suspension has since vanished.

¶20

5.Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly pointed out in K.SUKHENDER REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [(1999) 6 SCC 257] as follows:

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

“7.............. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be founded involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken.”

¶23

6. The learned Single Judge applied the above ratio faithfully to the present case. 7. In this view of the matter, we see no warrant for interference with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and we accordingly, dismiss the Writ Appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rpa To 1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Lawley Road, Coimbatore +1 cc to Government Pleader High Court Madras sr 14286 +1 cc to M/s.V.Chokalingham Advocate sr 10386 W.A.No.143 OF 2016 rsk(co) aa17/03/2017

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Director of Agriculture v. B.Ramesh, M.Sc., (Ag)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of Agriculture v. B.Ramesh, M.Sc., (Ag)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Karuppusamy, Vs The Joint Director

A.Veeramuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V.Chitra, W/o.Venkatesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.Abaraboo, Vs The District Collector

R.Gururaj Vs v.Senthil

S.Soundarajan Vs the Tamilnadu Pollution