Disposed

M.Karthikeyan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Jun 2023WP/6353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a suspension order, the High Court directed the first respondent to review the suspension considering the petitioner's representation, aligning with government instructions, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to review the suspension order per Government G.O.(Ms) No.81, consider respondent's representation, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

M.Karthikeyan Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

M.Karthikeyan

...Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore-641 018, Coimbatore District.

¶11

The Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Development), Collectorate, Coimbatore-641 018, Coimbatore District ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the order of suspension dated 12.02.2021 made in Roc.No.1294/2021/T5 issued by the 1^st respondent, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2022.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabakaran Government Advocate

¶14

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, while serving as 'Panchayat Secretary', Kunnathur Panchayat, was placed under suspension by the first respondent herein, through an order dated 12.02.2021, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner’s representation dated 04.03.2022 seeking for revocation of his suspension was not considered by the respondents and hence the present Writ Petition.

¶18

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

¶19

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 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

¶20

the facts of each case, considering the gravity of charges and the Rules

¶21

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

¶23

applicable. It was further held that the revocation of the suspension with a direction to the employer to post the delinquent in a non-sensitive post,

¶24

as held in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), also cannot be endorsed or directed as a matter of course.

¶25

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 enquiry into grave charges.

¶26

On consideration of these instructions in G.O.(Ms) No.81, this

¶27

Court is of the view that the respondents herein could be directed to review the order of suspension, in accordance with the guidelines issued thereunder.

¶28

In the light of the above findings, there shall be a direction to

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

M.S.RAMESH,J.

the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2022, seeking for revocation of the suspension order, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.81, dated 04.08.2022, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶35

01.06.2023

¶36

Index:Yes Speaking order

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore-641 018, Coimbatore District.

¶40

The Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Development), Collectorate, Coimbatore-641 018, Coimbatore District

¶41

W.P.No.6353 of 2022

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

M.Karthikeyan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karthikeyan v. The District Collector

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

Nithyanandham Ramachandran Vs The Deputy General Manager (Insolvency Professionals)

Nadarajan Vs The District collector

Jayabal Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.Arun Vs Deputy secretary to Government

S.N.Deepa Vs state of tamilnadu

S.Geetha Vs The District Elementary Educational officer