Madras High CourtWP/5320/2025disposed of

P.Pattabi v. The Superintending Engineer

2025-03-21Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-03-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN P.Pattabi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, (TANGEDCO) Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirupattur District 2.The Executive Engineer Office of the Executive Engineer (TANGEDCO) Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, O & M, Tirupattur District.

Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent to revoke the petitioner's suspension order dated 01.07.2021 based on his representation dated 27.08.2024 within the time framed by this Court. For Petitioner(s):

K.Gandhi Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.C.Manoharan Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction against the first respondent to revoke the suspension order of the

petitioner, dated 01.07.2024. The petitioner had given a representation dated 27.08.2024.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that while the petitioner was working as Commercial Inspector at Singarapet (O & M) at Krishnagiri district, a case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in crime No.4/AC/2021, dated 29.06.2021, for the offences under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The petitioner had been remanded to custody for more than four days and therefore, he was placed under suspension on 01.07.2021. 3.The learned counsel states that as on date, the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed before the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and trial is now pending. The petitioner had given a representation on 27.08.2024 seeking to revoke the suspension order. 4.Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

5.A direction is given to the first respondent to examine the representation given by the petitioner. The first respondent may also keep in mind that the payment of subsistence allowance without extracting work from the petitioner would only be a loss to the respondents. On the other hand, they could also consider posting the petitioner to a non sensitive post and extract work from the petitioner herein. But however, to a little extent, care may also be taken, to ensure that the petitioner is not posted very far away from the place where the trial in the criminal case is proceeding. The first respondent may examine and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.The writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are also closed. 21-03-2025 sli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.

sli To

21-03-2025