S.Selvakumar, v. The Directorate Of School Education,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.26801 of 2019 (Through Video Conference) S.Selvakumar
...Petitioner
Vs
1) The Directorate of School Education, Office of Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006
2) The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Thirupattur 635 601
3) Ramakrishna Higher Secondary School, Rep. by the Secretary, 18/24, London Mission Road, Thirupattur, Vellore District 635 601
4) Manavalan
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in proceedings nil, dated 22.08.2019, on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents: Mr.K.Tipu Sultan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar, for R3 & R4
O R D E R
The petitioner, while working as a Teacher in Government aided Ramakrishna Higher Secondary School at Tirupattur, Vellore District, was placed under suspension, through an order dated 30.07.2019 and the same was extended vide letter dated 22.08.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
2. The guidelines governing a Government employee to be kept under prolonged suspension, has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 at page 303, in the following manner:- "21.We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him.
The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
3. The petitioner is aggrieved against his prolonged suspension. Apparently, the suspension cannot be unjustifiably prolonged, except in accordance with the mandated guidelines as held in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra). In this background, it would be appropriate for the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for revocation of his suspension.
4. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to consider the petitioner's request, wherein the petitioner has sought for revocation of the suspension order passed by the third respondent, dated 22.08.2019, in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy this order.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was not paid Subsistence Allowance from 01.02.2020. It is needless to point out that when the respondents have chosen to place the petitioner under suspension, with effect from 22.08.2019, the petitioner would be entitled for the payment of Subsistence Allowance, during his period of suspension. The non-payment of the same would be against the Regulations and the settled Principles of Law in this regard.
6. In this connection, the petitioner is granted liberty to seek for the payment of Subsistence Allowance for the period when the Allowance was not paid and on receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondent Management shall forthwith consider the representation and disburse the Subsistence Allowance for the period for which it was not paid. The third respondent shall ensure that the arrears of Subsistence Allowance is disbursed atleast within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands Allowed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sts To:
1) The Directorate of School Education, Office of Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006
2) The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Thirupattur 635 601.
+1cc to Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 35685 +1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No. 35248 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 35606 W.P.No.26801 of 2019 SSV(CO) GN(13/08/2021)