Allowed

S.Kandasamy v. The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

Madras HC27 Jan 2023WP/1023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a suspension order of over four years. The court held that a suspension beyond three months requires a reasoned extension order. Finding none, the court revoked the suspension and ordered reinstatement with back wages.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order was revoked; the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages from 21.02.2018.

S.Kandasamy Vs The Joint Registrar / Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.1023 of 2019 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.1143 & 1144 of 2019

S.Kandasamy

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank, Dharmapuri.

¶12

2.S.1063, Puliampatti Primary Agricultural

¶13

Co-operative Thrift Society Ltd., Rep. by its President, Vadamangalam, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri - 635 123.

¶14

3.The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/ Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Krishnagiri Region, Krishnagiri District Collectorate Campus, Krishnagiri District.

¶15

(R3 impleaded vide order dated 20.01.2023 made in WMP.No.205/2023 in WP.No.1023/2019)

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from any manner interfering with the petitioner's right to function as Secretary in the 2^nd respondent Bank.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu

¶22

For R1 & R3 : Mr.T.M.Rajangam, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶25

Mr.T.M.Rajangam, learned Government Advocate for the first and third respondents and Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶26

The petitioner herein, while serving as a Secretary in the second

¶27

respondent Society, was placed under suspension by the second respondent, through an order dated 21.02.2018, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner’s representations dated 22.07.2018 and 03.12.2018,

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶31

seeking for revocation of his suspension, were not considered by the second respondent and hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶32

The guidelines governing a Government employee to be kept under prolonged suspension, has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India , (2015) 7 SCC 291 at page 303, in the following manner:-

¶33

“21.We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet 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 person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact 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

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/6

¶36

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶37

defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the 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.”

¶38

4. The petitioner herein is aggrieved against his prolonged suspension

¶39

for more than 4 years. There is nothing on record to show that the second respondent had passed a reasoned order for extension of the suspension period of the petitioner beyond 3 months, as contemplated in Ajay Kumar Choudary's case (supra) . Accordingly, the suspension order itself cannot be sustained.

¶40

4/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶43

In the light of the above observations, the impugned suspension order dated 21.02.2018 is revoked. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner back into service, together with back wages from 21.02.2018 onwards, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs.

¶45

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

27.01.2023

¶47

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/6

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

1.The Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank, Dharmapuri.

¶55

2.The President,

¶56

S.1063, Puliampatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Thrift Society Ltd., Vadamangalam, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri - 635 123.

¶57

3.The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/ Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Krishnagiri Region, Krishnagiri District Collectorate Campus, Krishnagiri District.

¶58

W.P.No.1023 of 2019

¶59

27.01.2023

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

6/6

S.Kandasamy v. The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kandasamy v. The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

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

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Joseph Sarguna Singh Vs The Additional Chief

C.Chandraseelan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Babu, S/o.K.Gopal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Ravi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Sundar, (Age 44 years), Vs The State of Tamilnadu