← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4900/2015disposed of

L.Palani, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

2017-08-17Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.4900 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 L.Palani

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

...Respondent

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned suspension order in Rc.No.A3/144/2014, dated 13.01.2014 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all benefits and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The order of suspension dated 13.01.2014 is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer and on account of registering a criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, he was placed under suspension by the respondent in proceedings dated 13.01.2014.

3. The criminal case registered in Crime No.01 of 2014 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is pending trial. This Court is not inclined to quash the order of suspension since the allegations against the writ petitioner is relating to corruption. This Court cannot show any leniency in the cases of corruption and the allegations against the corruption are to be dealt with strictly and in accordance with law. This Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cannot show any leniency against the allegations of corruption in respect of the public servants.

4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner is under suspension for more than 3 years and even as per the Government Order, the order of suspension has to be reviewed.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the submissions by stating that it is suffice if a direction is given to the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 09.04.2014.

6. Without going into the merits and the demerits of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.4.2014 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar svn/smn To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

Villupuram.

+1cc to M/S.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate Sr. 59426 +1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 60001 W.P.No.4900 of 2015 SK(CO) VR(04/09/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/