R.Vibushanan v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.16817 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.16411 of 2019 R.Vibushanan

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records and quashing the impugned order 20.12.2010 of the 2nd respondent vide R.C.41548/2010/A2 suspending the petitioner with effect from 16.12.2010 on account of his having involved in Crime No.3/AC/2010/CC-III dated 16.12.2010 of the Vigilance and AntiCorruption U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as an Assistant in any non-sensitive post in the Revenue Department within time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban K. For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the suspension order dated 20.12.2010, wherein a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was arrested for demanding bribe of Rs.2,500/-, the second respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension by invoking power under Rule 17(e)

(2) Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

against which, the Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was suspended under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 2010, the petitioner case was not revealed till date.

3.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2010, till date the petitioner representations were not considered. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to make representation to the Authorities for his grievance.

4.With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

pam Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

+1cc to Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Advocate, SR.No.76767 +1cc to the Govt.Pleader, Vide Sr.No.76868 W.P.No.16817 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.16411 of 2019 Kak(22/10/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/