Allowed

S.Kumar v. The Director of Agriculture

Madras HC3 Feb 2020WP/89/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge directed the respondent to revoke the petitioner's suspension and post him in a non-sensitive role pending criminal trial completion. The Court also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude proceedings within four months to prevent unnecessary subsistence payments.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's suspension revoked with direction to post him in a non-sensitive post. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to complete criminal trial proceedings within four months.

S.Kumar Vs The Director of Agriculture — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.02.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.89 of 2020 and WMP No.105/2020

S.Kumar

.. Petitioner

.v.

1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvannamalai Detachment, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned orders dated 11.05.2017 in Na.B3/7451/2017 and its consequential order dated 14.05.2019 in Letter No.Aa3/7451/2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to re-instate the petitioner as Assistant Agricultural Officer within stipulated time.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

¶8

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the suspension Order passed by the 2^nd respondent and for a direction to the respondent to re-instate the petitioner into service as Assistant Agricultural Officer.

¶9

1/6

¶10

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

¶11

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an Assistant Agricultural Officer in the 1^st respondent Department. A criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.4/2017, for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.05.2017. Pursuant to the same, the impugned suspension Order came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent on 11.05.2017.

¶12

3.The petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.12817 of 2018, for a direction to the respondent to revoke the Order of suspension based on the representation made by the petitioner. This Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the Orders passed by this Court, the 2^nd respondent by his proceedings dated, 14.05.2019, has declined to revoke the suspension and the petitioner continues to be kept under suspension till date. Therefore, both the Orders passed by the 2^nd respondent has been challenged in the present Writ Petition.

¶13

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept under prolonged suspension and even in the case of corruption, the respondent has to review the order of suspension periodically. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submission, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary .v. Union of India reported in [2015 7 SCC 291].

¶14

5.Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Charges against the petitioner are very serious. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The learned counsel further submitted that the investigation has been completed in the criminal proceedings and a Final Report has already been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. The learned counsel further submitted that the case has been taken on file in SPL.C.C.No.1/2020. The learned counsel therefore requested this Court to fix a time limit for completion of the criminal proceedings and till then the suspension of the petitioner should not be revoked.

¶15

6.The petitioner has been kept under suspension for the last 2 ½ years. The Final Report has now been filed before the concerned Court. The petitioner has been unnecessarily paid subsistence allowance for more than 2 ½ years without extracting

¶16

2/6

¶17

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

¶18

any work. This Court has considered the entire issue and the judgment of this Court in S.Raju .v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in W.P.No.11967 of 2018, dated 25.07.2019, has categorically held that such payment of subsistence allowance for a long time drains the public exchequer. This Court held that in all such cases, the delinquent employee can be posted in some non-sensitive post and he can be paid the monthly salary after extracting work.

¶19

7.In the considered view of this Court, the continuation of the petitioner under suspension will not be of any use since the charge sheet itself has been filed only recently. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to give a representation to the 2^nd respondent, seeking for revocation of suspension and the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders revoking the suspension and posting the petitioner in a non-sensitive post.

¶20

8.There shall be a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, to complete the proceedings in SPL.C.C.No.1/20 20, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Judge is directed to conduct the proceedings on a day to day basis and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted in this case. A copy of this order shall also be marked to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.

¶21

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

KP To

¶26

1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶30

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvannamalai Detachment, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶31

4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.

¶32

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.NO. 8614
+1cc to Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Advocate sr.8274
W.P.No.89 of 2020
gp(co)
nr 25/02/2020

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

S.Kumar v. The Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumar v. The Director of Agriculture

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.Malliga Vs The Secretary to Government

T.Thangamani Vs The Secretary to Government

M/s. Tamil Nadu Tuberculosis Employees Association, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Joseph Delphin Chandra Vs The Director of School Education

A.Rajaram, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Padmini Vs The Collector of Thiruvallur District