Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3581/2020disposed of

D.Vijayakumar v. The Managing Director

2022-04-04Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

W.P.(MD) No.3581 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.3581 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3024 of 2020 D.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board 493, Annasalai, Nandanam Chennai-600 036 2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Madurai Housing Unit Tamil Nadu Housing Board Madurai 3.The Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Madurai 4.The Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board 493, Annasalai, Nandanam Chennai-600 036 ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent in Memo No.DC2/3769/2014, dated 18.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and in consequence thereof direct the 1st Respondent to permit the petitioner to encash the entire accumulated earn leave salary, salary for the leave on private affairs, special provident fund, provident fund at once. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents :

No appearance for R1 & R4 Mr.M.Mehaboob Athiff for R2 Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate for R3

O R D E R

The order of rejection, dated 18.12.2019, passed by the fourth respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits and also to withdraw https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD) No.3581 of 2020 the order of suspension is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.9 of 2017, under Sections 120-B, 167, 409 I.P.C., 13

(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him. In view of the fact that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, his services were extended by invoking the fundamental rules and the order of suspension was also extended. The request of of the petitioner to settle the terminal benefits was rejected.

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation. He was placed under suspension and his services were extended. The criminal case registered against the petitioner is pending. Departmental disciplinary proceedings are also initiated against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has to participate in the departmental disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal trial and only after disposal of the criminal proceedings, he would be entitled to all the benefits in accordance with the Rules. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for provisional pension not exceeding to the subsistence allowance as applicable. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the provisional pension as applicable under the Rules from the date of suspension till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.

4. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) krk To:

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-16705[F] dated 05/04/2022 ) W.P.(MD) No.3581 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3024 of 2020 04.04.2022 RD(13.04.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2