K.Jagannathan v. The Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.No.24418 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.23851 of 2023 K.Jagannathan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Joint Director of Agricultural, Agricultural Department, Tirupathur District - 635 601.
3.The Assistant Director of Agriculture, S.Kadiyur, Jolarpet, Tirupathur - 635 851.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, call for the records of the impugned order in dated 30.09.2020 in No: A1/1114/2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.V.Sathya For Respondents :
Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Government Advocate Page No.1 of 4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned order, dated 30.09.2020 in No.A1/1114/2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension in consequence of the arrest in a criminal case in Crime No.4 of 2020, for offence under Sections 117, 120, 468, 471 of IPC r/w Sections 43, 66, 66(c) & (d) of the Information Technology Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged charges initiated against him and he has submitted a detailed explanation in disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner is only an Assistant Agricultural Officer and there is no chance for him to get OTP (One Time Password) from the beneficiaries for misusing the amount. 3.It is contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the enquiry officer has already been appointed and the petitioner has also submitted his detailed explanation. Page No.2 of 4
4.At the outset, I am of the view that the order of suspension cannot be questioned as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. 5.Considering the gravity of the charges, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 30.09.2020. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the 2nd respondent shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 18.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vv2 N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
Page No.3 of 4
vv2 To 1.The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Joint Director of Agricultural, Agricultural Department, Tirupathur District - 635 601.
3.The Assistant Director of Agriculture, S.Kadiyur, Jolarpet, Tirupathur - 635 851.
18.08.2023 Page No.4 of 4