Disposed

L.Raji v. the Greater Chennai Corporation

Madras HC16 Nov 2023WP/28267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a prolonged suspension order, the High Court referred to Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents. It directed the Deputy Commissioner to review the suspension order in compliance with Government instructions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to review the suspension order and consider the petitioner's representation for revocation within four weeks.

L.Raji Vs the Greater Chennai Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.28267 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.28267 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.27789 of 2023

L.Raji

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. by the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner (R&F), General Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Order in G.D.C.No.E14/12367/2022 dated 05.04.2023 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Shinu

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.28267 of 2023

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinath, Standing Counsel

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard M/s.Shinu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶21

Mr.S.Gopinath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶22

On the ground of prolonged suspension, the petitioner seeks for

¶23

interference to the suspension order through the present Writ Petition.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of ' Ajay Kumar

¶25

Choudhary v. Union of India' , reported in '(2015) 7 SCC 291', had set certain guidelines with regard to prolonged suspension. On a reference made by me, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of ' P.Kannan

¶26

Vs. Commissioner of Municipal Administration and others' reported in '(2022) 2 CTC 353' , had held that the judgement of the Apex Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), does not lay down an absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months on the circumstances mentioned therein and that the order of suspension should be analysed on the facts of each case, considering the gravity of charges and the Rules applicable. It was further

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.28267 of 2023

¶30

held that the revocation of the suspension with a direction to the employer

¶31

to post the delinquent in a non-sensitive post, as held in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), also cannot be endorsed or directed as a matter of course.

¶32

In line with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the Government, in G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, had stipulated a compendium of instructions for review of suspension orders in matter which are pending inquiry into grave charges.

¶33

On consideration of these instructions in G.O.(Ms) No.81, this Court is of the view that the respondent herein could be directed to review

¶34

the order of suspension, in accordance with the guidelines issued thereunder.

¶35

In the light of the above findings, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2023, seeking for revocation of the suspension order, in accordance

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.28267 of 2023

¶39

with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.81, dated

¶40

04.08.2022, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) weeks

¶41

from the date of receipt of a copy this order.