Writ petition filed by a suspended BT Assistant challenging her suspension order dated 26.06.2023 as arbitrary and illegal. Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.19965 of 2023 and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.16471 and 16472 of 2023
Sarmila ... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
1/6
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in Rc.No.4967/B2/2023, dated 26.06.2023 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service for post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the fifth respondent's School within time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed by a B.T. Assistant (Tamil Teacher) challenging the order of suspension, dated 26.06.2023.
2. The writ petitioner was arrayed as a third accused in Crime No.14 of
2021, on the file of the District Crime Branch, Karur, dated 06.12.2021. As
per the allegations in the said F.I.R, she is said to have received a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) along with two others from the defacto complainant assuring to get an employment and consequently all the three of them have jointly forged a Government Order of employment. On the basis of the said allegations, the petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2023 and
2/6
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
placed under suspension which is impugned in the writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner is under prolonged suspension. The counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.Union of India, through its Secretary and another) . He further relied upon the G.O.Ms.No. 81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022 and the Full Bench judgment of our High Court reported in 2022 (2) CTC 353 (P.Kannan Vs. Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Commission and two others).
4. A perusal of the suspension order clearly indicates that, since the writ petitioner was in judicial custody for more than 48 (Forty Eight) hours, she has been placed under deemed suspension. Further, the Hon'ble Full Bench of our High Court has clarified that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.Union of India, through its Secretary and another), had not laid down any absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond a
3/6
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
period of three months. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, Clause No. 11 (XI) clearly points out that, in all cases where delinquent is involved in a Criminal case and complicated questions of law and facts are involved, and the authority is not in a position to finalise the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the suspension may not be reviewed.
5. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner raised in the present writ petition is devoid of any merits.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
4/6
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
To
5/6
W.P.(MD).No.19965 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
W.P(MD)No.19965 of 2023
06.11.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner challenging her suspension due to prolonged judicial custody has merits.
Whether a suspension order can be reviewed when complicated questions of law and facts are involved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶31
(2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary and another) · Who else cites this
P. Kannan vs. Commissioner for Municipal AdministrationRelied on¶31
2022 (2) CTC 353 (P.Kannan Vs. Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Commission and two others)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarmila
Director of School Education, Chennai
District Collector, Karur
Chief Educational Officer, Karur
District Educational Officer, Karur District
Headmaster, Government High School, Vengapalayam
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
