Arulsingh.A.V v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and W.M.P(MD) No.4691 of 2021 A.V.Arulsingh
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chariman, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., T.N.Bio-Diversity Green Project Project Management Unit Office, Vellachery-Tambaram Main Road, Nanmangalam, Madavakkam, Chennai-600 100.
2.The Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Registered Office, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 001.
... Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner in the post of Field Officer by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2021 in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 within the time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.P.Mahendran Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner, while serving as Field Assistant in the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, was placed under suspension by the second respondent herein, through an order dated 22.11.2019, which are impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2021 seeking for revocation of his suspension was not considered by the second respondent and hence the present writ petition.
2. The guidelines governing a Government employee to be kept 1/3
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 one 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, it would be appropriate for the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, seeking for revocation of his suspension.
4.Accordingly, a Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued with a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2021, wherein the petitioner has sought for revocation of the suspension order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Ref No.E2/10025/2019 dated 22.11.2019, 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.
2/3
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 (ADII) // 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.
To 1.The Chariman, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., T.N.Bio-Diversity Green Project Project Management Unit Office, Vellachery-Tambaram Main Road, Nanmangalam, Madavakkam, Chennai-600 100.
2.The Managing Director, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Registered Office, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 001.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-12163[F] dated 18/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-12170[F] dated 18/03/2021 ) and W.M.P(MD) No.4691 of 2021 17.03.2021 SE(CO) KB(15.04.2021) 3P 5C 3/3