E.Kalpana, v. The General Manager,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13-10-2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.32703 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 E.Kalpana .. Petitioner vs The General Manager Vellore - Thiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers'

Union Ltd., Sathuvachari, Vellore 9 .. Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.5381/I.R./2015-3, dated 9.6.2015, and quashing the same and consequently, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Senior Receptionist in the respondent Union with all attendant benefits, back-wages and other monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.The petitioner would state that she while working as a Senior Receptionist in the services of the respondent-Union, was involved in a criminal case, which led to her arrest on 6.6.2015, by the Inspector of Police, CCIW-CID, Vellore, and she was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.6.2015, and challenging legality of the same, came forward to file this writ petition.

3.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offence and has been falsely implicated, arrested and incarcerated and later on, she came out on bail and since the period of suspension has exceeded three months, it has to be reviewed and hence, prays for appropriate orders.

4.Per contra, Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, would contend that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the respondent-Union and therefore, a complaint was lodged against her, which resulted in the registration of the criminal case, and she was arrested and incarcerated for more than 48 hours and hence, she has been placed under suspension.

5.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 (AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER), after placing reliance upon Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., has held that the currency of suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within the said period, charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent employee and even if the charge-sheet is filed, a reasoned order should be passed for extension of suspension. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.21 of the said judgment as under:- "21.

We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence.

preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.

Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

7.Though the petitioner prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, permits her to submit a representation for revocation of the order of suspension, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent on receipt of the same, is directed to consider it on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders thereon within a period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar nsv To:

The General Manager Vellore - Thiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers'

Union Ltd., Sathuvachari Vellore 9 +1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam Advocate sr.56444 +1 cc to Mr.R.Bala Ramesh Advocate sr.56985 W.P.No.32703 of 2015 aa27/10/2015