Allowed

Vadivel v. The Commissioner

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP(MD)/9218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a suspension order issued against a government employee suspended for over three months without a charge sheet. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court directed reinstatement due to inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order dated 28.02.2022 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service.

Vadivel Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

Vadivel

... Petitioner

The Commissioner, Pugalur Municipality, Karur District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certioarari to calling for the records relating to the Proceedings in Na.Ka.50/2022, dated 28.02.2022 on the file of the Respondent herein and quash the same .

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.MP.Amalan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani Standing Counsel

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Mr.S.MP.Amalan, learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

petitioner and Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension, dated 28. 02.2022 alleging that it is illegal.

¶22

The petitioner is working as an Office Assistant in the office of the respondent. A case has been registered in Crime No.6 of 2022 by the District Crime Branch, Karur, against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 147, 294(b), 506(2) IPC. The petitioner has been arrayed as 6^th accused in the above case. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2022 and released on 16.03.2022. As the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours, he is deemed to have got suspended. He has also not issued with a charge-memo.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶26

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶27

petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case only in view of the confession given by the co-accused. Despite the petitioner has been kept under suspension from 28.02.2022, So far neither the charge memo issued nor charge sheet filed against him in the criminal case pending against him. The allegation is that the petitioner has actively co-operated with the other accused and had created forged documents in respect of Government lands, in order to create patta in the name of private individuals.

¶28

5.Since the respondent would have had Government records in their custody, prima facie grounds for the allegation, the respondent could have initiated disciplinary proceedings. Despite the petitioner has been kept under suspension for more than 3 months and neither charge memo nor charge sheet has been filed against him.

¶29

6.The case in hand squarely relies upon the judgment of the

¶30

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another , reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389,

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶34

wherein it is held that the period of suspension should not extend beyond period of three months if memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent within the said period.

¶35

7.In this case also, no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner despite he was placed under suspension for more than three months. Nothing would have precluded the respondents from furnishing the charge memo if the respondents deems it fit to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But so far, the respondents have not taken any steps in that direction. It is right to state that revoking suspension of this nature would have serious consequence, if the respondents does not show enough seriousness in serving the charge memo at the earliest in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and complete it within any specific time frame. Just because the petitioner is said to have involved in a criminal case, the suspension cannot be kept eternally without any revision.

¶36

As rendered in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary' s case, I feel

¶37

pending investigation/pending criminal case, the order of suspension be revoked and the petitioner can be reinstated into service.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶41

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the

¶42

impugned order in Na.Ka.50/2022, dated 28.02.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

26.07.2024

¶45

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No PNM

¶46

¶47

The Commissioner, Pugalur Municipality, Karur District

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

WP(MD). No.9218 of 2022

¶51

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶52

PNM

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.9218 of 2022

¶54

26.07.2024

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

Vadivel v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadivel v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaleeswaran K Vs The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Mohanarajan T Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

T.Kandasamy Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Vasantha Raja T Vs The Vice Chancellor

Krishnamoorthy. M Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary

Jayanthi. P Vs Teacher Recruitment Board