M.Chellamuthu v. The Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and W.M.P(MD) No.65 of 2020 Dr.M.Chellamuthu

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Director, The Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Soundaram Nagar, Gandhigramam Post, Dindigul-624 302.

2.Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, The Director, The Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Soundaram Nagar, Gandhigramam Post, Dindigul-624 302.

3.The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Room No.348, A wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.

... Respondents P RAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned suspension order dated 26.08.2019 in Proc. No.GIRH/ESTT/2019-20/0359 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan Standing Counsel For R-3 : Mr.D.Saravanan Central Government Standing Counsel 1/3

O R D E R

The petitioner, while serving as Teaching Assistant in the first respondent trust, was placed under suspension by the first respondent herein, through an order dated 26.08.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

2. The guidelines governing a Government employee to be kept under prolonged suspension, has been dealt with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 of 1 1⁄4 year. Apparently, the suspension cannot unjustifiably prolonged, except in accordance with the mandated guidelines as held in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra). In this background, if the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation for revocation of his suspension order to the first respondent with the consequential direction to consider such representation within a stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured. 2/3

4.In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation to the first respondent for revocation of his suspension order and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent herein shall consider the same 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. The Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) NOTE:

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. +1 CC to M/s.V.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-13657[F] dated 25/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.D.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-13585[F] dated 25/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate ( SR-13715[F] dated 25/03/2021 ) Order made in 24.03.2021 Ak(26/02/2021) 3 P 4C 3/3