Dismissed

The Co-operative Sub-Registrar v. Murugeshwari.K

Madras HC21 Nov 2024WA(MD)/2382/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenges a Single Judge order that terminated a prolonged suspension of a society employee. The High Court held the suspension illegal due to non-framing of charges within three months, applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Co-operative Sub-Registrar Vs Murugeshwari.K — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.16480 and 16481 of 2024

¶7

The Co-operative Sub-Registrar of Managing Director, R.2. Puliampatty Co-operative Society, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant/3^rd Respondent Vs.

¶8

1.K.Murugeshwari ... 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶9

2.The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Virdhunagar District. ... 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶10

3.The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

... 3^rd Respondent/2^nd Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow the appeal, set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.15672 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024.

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.S.Seenivasagam For R-1 : Mr.S.Kishore Kumar For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶19

The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.15672 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024.

¶20

In contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent herein, the appellant Society had placed her under suspension through an order dated 01.02.2024. Thereafter, since no further action was taken for framing of charges, the first respondent herein had challenged the suspension order through a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.15672 of 2024, predominantly on the ground of prolonged suspension.

¶21

The learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the Writ Petition on 12.07.2024, holding that the prolonged suspension for three months without

¶22

framing of charges and the failure to revise the order of suspension after expiry of three months, is opposed to the well laid down dictum of the Hon'ble

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶26

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UoI) and others reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119 . This order of the Writ Court is under challenge in this appeal.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to distinguish the Ajay Kumar Choudhary 's case, stating that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not interfered with the suspension order in that case, the dictum laid down therein, will not have any applicability to the present case and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.

¶28

We do not endorse such a submission. The ratio decidendi in Ajay Kumar Choudhary 's case is that in all cases of prolonged suspension, when the disciplinary authority fails to frame a charge memo, within a period of three months from the date of suspension, the suspension order requires to be reviewed and if the authority intends to continue the suspension against the concerned employee, he shall pass a speaking order for such continuation. However, in the subsequent decisions rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, it has been distinguished that the dictum in Ajay Kumar Choudhary 's case will not apply to cases, where the employee has been implicated in a criminal case, cases by DVAC, etc.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶32

In the instant case, the first respondent herein was not involved in any

¶33

criminal case. It is also not in dispute that, even after expiry of three months from the date of suspension, the appellant had not framed charges for disciplinary action against her. It is only after filing of the Writ Petition that the appellant had chosen to frame charges on 30.09.2024. It is in this background that the learned Single Judge had relied upon Ajay Kumar Choudhary 's case and had found the suspension order to be illegal. There is no infirmity in such findings.

¶34

The ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal requires to be allowed on the ground that the suspension order in Ajay Kumar Choudhary 's case was not set aside, is unacceptable since it is the ratio decidendi therein, which would be relevant and not the obiter dictum therein.

¶35

Thus, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 21.11.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶38

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

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶41

¶42

1.The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Virdhunagar District.

¶43

2.The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶44

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

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶47

M.S.RAMESH,J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.

¶48

¶49

W.A.(MD).No.2382 of 2024

¶50

21.11.2024

¶51

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

¶52

Page 6 of 6

The Co-operative Sub-Registrar v. Murugeshwari.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Co-operative Sub-Registrar v. Murugeshwari.K

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 Majilisul Bhuhari Sheriff Waqf Vs M.Abdul Rahman

S.Paulraj(Died)(Substitutued by)I.Mary, Vs the District Educational Officer

Moosa Naina Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

R.Thayalan Vs The District Collector

M/s. Lakshmi Traders Vs The Designated Officer (Thanjavur District)

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K Jeyanthi