Single judge allowed this writ petition challenging a nearly four-year-old suspension order. The Court applied the ratio from Ajay Kumar Choudhary that prolonged suspension is bad in law and set aside the suspension, directing reinstatement.
Impugned suspension order set aside; petitioner reinstated in service within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.5028 of 2018
M.Ravichandran
.. Petitioner
-vs-
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.20/2014/A2 dated 26.7.14 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Vijayakumar For Respondents :: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner nearly four years ago on 26.7.2014 under Rule 17(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.
dated 6.1.2012 clearly says that the Tahsildar alone is vested with the power under the said government order to issue the cheques. While so, one Mr.Govindarajan, Special Tahsildar, who was deputed to attend the election duty in March, 2014, had handed over the cheques to one Mr.J.Baskar, Data Entry Operator on 3.2.2014 and this could be also seen from the statement furnished by the State Bank of India, Vazhapadi. However, the Data Entry Operator Mr.J.Baskar, misusing the authority given by the Special Tahsildar Mr.Govindarajan, encashed the cheques, which were subsequently noticed, and the Tahsildar also obtained a statement from the said Mr.J.Baskar, who also, in his statement, admitted the guilt. Since the said Mr.J.Baskar fairly admitted the guilt, it is not known how the petitioner can be held responsible. Instead of proceeding against the said Mr.J.Baskar, the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner. Secondly, when the suspension order was passed way back on 26.7.2014, even after nearly four years, the respondents have not come forward to review the same. That also shows that the impugned order of suspension is vitiated, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 holding that the prolonged suspension is bad in law.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ss
To
aa22/03/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the servitude of prolonged suspension of nearly four years justified for an incident where another employee admitted guilt.
Whether the suspension order is liable to be set aside on the ground of prolonged suspension violating the principle in Ajay Kumar Choudhary.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and anotherApplied¶15
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and anotherApplied¶17
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Ravichandran
Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration
District Collector Salem
T.Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
