J.Muniyammal v. The Distirct Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26-02-2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.2760 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.3027 of 2019 J.Muniyammal ..

Petitioner - Vs. - 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, 2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Acharapakkam, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the order of suspension in Na.Ka.No.8102/2018/sa.oo/the/pa.ve dated 26.11.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all other consequential mandatory benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The order of suspension dated 26.11.2018, issued by the first respondent, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. On account of the registration of a criminal case against the writ petitioner, the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the writ petitioner was placed under suspension.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the criminal case is no way connected with the official duties of the writ petitioner. However, a public servant, who involved in a criminal case, has to obey the departmental disciplinary proceedings and he cannot take the ground that the criminal case is no way connected with the official duties.

4. The Government Servant has to maintain good conduct, both inside the office as well as outside the office. The public servants have status in the society and by virtue of their status, they are expected to behave properly even in the public places.

5. This being the principles to be followed, the order of suspension issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 26.11.2018, cannot be reviewed now as the writ petitioner is under suspension hardly for about three months.

6. The order of suspension is to be reviewed by the competent authorities after the lapse of six months and therefore, the respondents are at liberty to review the order of suspension, after completion of six months, based on the merits and in accordance with law.

7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Svn To 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram,

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Acharapakkam, +1cc to Mr.Anbazhagan, Advocate Sr.18318 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.18278 WP 2760 of 2019 mg[co] srg 25/03/2019