← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19428/2025disposed of

E.Sahul Hameeth v. The District Collector

2025-05-28Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.05.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. V. THAMILSELVI E. Sahul Hameeth ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No:E-2167188/2024/N5 dated 25.06.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondent to review the suspension order based on the representation dated 12.05.2025 as per the Government Order vide G.O. Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022.

For Petitioner :

Mr. P. Ganesan For Respondent :

Ms. A. Bakkiya Lakshmi Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No:E2167188/2024/N5 dated 25.06.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondent to review the suspension order based on the representation dated 12.05.2025 as per the Government Order vide G.O. Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer on regular time scale of pay on 30.07.2010 at Tharamangalam Panchayat Development Office, Salem District and was promoted to the post of Junior Drafting Officer at District Rural Development Agency, Salem. A complaint was lodged by one K.Senthil, who is doing tender work in Agriculture and Rural Development Department, stating that one Ravichandran, Executive Engineer along with the petitioner, demanded a bride of Rs.91,000/- from the complainant for the release of balance amount due and payable to the complainant for the work carried out by him to the satisfaction of the Agriculture and Rural Development Department under the tender work. The petitioner was innocent and he was no way connected 2/6

with the incident, but the petitioner was trapped into the case stating that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the petitioner, which was dropped by the complainant as directed by Ravichandran, Executive Engineer. The petitioner and Ravichandran, Executive Engineer were arrested on 21.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody in pursuance to the registration of the F.I.R. in Crime No.03/AC/2024 dated 21.06.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem District. As a result, the petitioner was suspended from his service with effect from 21.06.2024 by the respondent's order dated 25.06.2024 and one year has lapsed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner and one Ravichandran, Executive Engineer were arrested on 21.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody in pursuance to the registration of the F.I.R. in Crime No.03/AC/2024 dated 21.06.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem District and disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offence committed by him, demanding bribe from one K. Senthil. 3/6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order of this Court made in W.P.No.10591 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025 in support of his contention that any order of suspension must be reviewed once in every three months and it should also be examined whether there is a continuing necessity to keep the Government servant under suspension, which is extracted hereunder:

" 4.The other issue pertains to the review of the order of suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guidelines issued in G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022. As per the said Government Order, it had been stipulated that any order of suspension must be reviewed once in every three months and it should also be examined whether there is a continuing necessity to keep the Government servant under suspension."

5. Since the above case squarely applies to the facts of the present case, there shall be a direction to the respondent to examine the matter concerning the petitioner in light of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022 and take an appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the date 4/6

of receipt of a copy of this Order. The respondent is obligated to continue paying the petitioner subsistence allowance for the duration of his suspense.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 28.05.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No ab/dhk To The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem District.

5/6

T. V. THAMILSELVI. J., ab 28.05.2025 6/6