E.Boopathy v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.31259 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.36444 and 36448 of 2018 E.Boopathy ... Petitioner versus The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
... Respondent Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Rc.No.4433/2018/PA2 dated 07.06.2018 and to quash the same. For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, Senior Counsel for M/s.M.Muthappan For Respondent :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 03.06.2005. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 2010. Subsequently, he was promoted as Manager/Deputy Block Development Officer of Thirupporur Panchayat Union on 19.11.2014 and he joined as a Deputy Block Development Officer of Thiruporur Panchayat Union on 18.05.2018.
1.1. On a complaint of Captain S.Prabakaran, who is a Merchant Navy Captain, alleging that the petitioner Boopathy, wanted bribe for the purpose of approval of a housing plot, a case was registered in C.C.No.7 of 2018 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2018. Hence, he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from the date of detention i.e. from 05.06.2018. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner granted approval for the building plan by proceedings dated 01.06.2018 and forwarded the same to the signature of the Block Development Officer and therefore, the complaint must be certainly false. 2.1. This contention cannot be considered at this stage as it is pending consideration by some other authority. 2.2. It is also submitted that as no charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner cannot be placed under prolonged suspension. Therefore, the respondents can post the petitioner in any non-sensitive post after imposing appropriate terms and conditions, so that, the petitioner would not get opportunity to make any demand.
3. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 "Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India" and "State of Tamil Nadu Vs Pramod Kumar" reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1079 are relied
upon, wherein, it was held as follows:
"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 suspension. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution."
4. In the light of the facts and circumstances and considering the legal position as cited supra, the respondents are directed to revoke the order of suspension and put the petitioner in any non-sensitive post after imposing appropriate terms and conditions which would be relevant and appropriate having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.11.2018 ogy
DR.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy To The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
W.P.No.31259 of 2018 28.11.2018