A.Rameshbabu v. The Director Of Technical Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR WP.No.15003/2021 & WMP.No.15884/2021 [Video Conferencing] A.Ramesh Babu .. Petitioner Vs.

The Director of Technical Education Chennai 600 025.

.. Respondent Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in proceedings No.37901/D1/2020 dated 21.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondent :

Mr.C.Kathiravan Government Advocate

ORDER

1.

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.

2.

Mr.C.kathiravan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

3.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order of the respondent dated 21.12.2020, in and by which the petitioner was placed under suspension, with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. 4.

The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Superintendent at the Government College of Technology, Coimbatore, vide order impugned herein, he was placed under suspension on the ground that his conduct is unbecoming of Government Servant and that an enquiry into grave allegations is contemplated. The present writ petition is filed challenging the said suspension order mainly on the ground that no charges have been framed nor a charge memo has been issued so far. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be

permitted to submit a representation seeking revocation of the suspension order in the light of the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and that this Court may issue a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a time frame.

6.

This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials placed before it. 7.

Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, without going into the merits of the case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, permits the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent for revocation of the order of suspension and on such representation being made, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner herein.

8.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.07.2021 AP Internet : Yes To The Director of Technical Educational Chennai 600 025.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AP 22.07.2021