T.Rajasekar, Age 43 v. The Chief Engineer/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.08.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.21045 of 2016 WMP.Nos.18006 and 18007 of 2016 T.Rajasekar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution Chennai North Region/TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Development Circle/TANGEDCO, A-10, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32 3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team V, Forgery Wing, Egmore Chennai-8 ... Respondents Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in Memo.No.Se/CDC/ADM/A3/F.Suspension/D.No.3201/ 2013, dated 30.8.2013 and subsequent proceedings passed by the 2nd Respondent in letter No.4024/Me.Po/Se.Va.Va/Ne.P1/U3/Ko Suspension/2015-1 dated .10.2015 which is signed on 13.10.2015 by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the Petitioner in any Department. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondent :

Ms.Varalakshmi, Standing Counsel

ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order of suspension dated 30.8.2013 of the 2nd Respondent and subsequent proceedings passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 13.10.2015 and to direct the 1st Respondent to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the Petitioner.

2. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

3. It is a case of prolonged suspension for a period of more than 3 years. In this case, another person is also involved and he filed WP.No.5442 of 2015, which was allowed by this court by order dated 26.4.2016, quashing the suspension order on the ground that it was a prolonged one and pursuant to the said order, he was also reinstated in service. When that being the case, the Petitioner herein is also similarly placed person in respect of the very same offence and hence, same yardstick can be applied to the case on hand also, since in the case on hand, till date no charge memo nor departmental proceedings has been initiated against the Petitioner.

4. Following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2015 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India), this court by order dated 26.4.2016 in WP.No.5442 of 2015 has held as under:- "5. It is certainly the case of prolonged suspension. It is not in dispute that during suspension period, the petitioner is receiving subsistence allowance. By keeping the petitioner under suspension without even initiating the departmental proceedings certainly public interest would suffer. We do not know when the final report would come up. Even assuming the final report indicates the involvement of the petitioner, then it would be subject to trial leading to further delay. It is not as if the respondent concerned does not have the power of review over an order of suspension. Certainly prolonged suspension would be a ground for review. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary's case will apply to the case on hand.

6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is set aside and in view of the fact that the suspension order passed earlier in 30-08-2013 is a subsequent one, the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension any more. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent concerned to give posting to the petitioner in any one of the places, he chooses. This order is also passed without prejudice to the initiation of the departmental proceedings or on the conclusion of the trial after filing the final report holding the petitioner guilty. "

5. Under the above said circumstances and following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and this court cited supra, the impugned orders are set aside. However, it is made clear that Petitioner shall be posted in any one of the places, as per the choice of the respondent and that this order is also passed without prejudice to the initiation of the departmental proceedings or on the conclusion of the trial after filing the final report holding the petitioner guilty. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Srcm To:

1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution Chennai North Region/TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Development Circle/TANGEDCO, A-10, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32 3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team V, Forgery Wing, Egmore Chennai-8 +1cc to Mr.S.Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.47209 +1cc to Mr.R.Varalakshmi, S.R.No.47524 W.P.No.21045 of 2016 PVS(CO) CA(14/09/2016)