S.Vadivel v. The Principal Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10/06/2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP(MD)Nos.11641 and 11645 of 2026 S.Vadivel ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, (Government Museum Department Section), Secretariat, Chennai - 9..

2. The Director,, Department of Museum, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Curator,, Government Museum Department, Thirugogarnam, Pudukkotai.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the Impugned Order of Suspension passed by the second respondent in SE.MU.A.No. 2934/2025/E2 dated 15.10.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to Re-join duty as Assistant 1/9

immediately as there is no Review of order of Suspension or order of extension of Suspension on completion of 3/6 months as in Para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.40 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 30.01.1996.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Civil side)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.

2. With consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner herein, while working as Junior Assistant in the Office of the third respondent, was placed under suspension through the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2025 on certain allegations of misconduct. Since the petitioner is being continued under suspension for more than six months, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the order of suspension. 2/9

4. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 is pending. However, the second respondent, who has placed the petitioner under suspension through the impugned proceedings as early as on 15.10.2025 ought to have taken steps to review the order of suspension, especially in the light of guidelines issued by the Government at paragraph No.11 in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, which reads as under: "11. The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:- (i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint.

Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concemed must be clear in mind that it is necessary, Prolonged suspension means that Government pays a Government Servant without extracting any work from him. In view of the above position, the suspension should not be resorted to unless the concerned authority has considered all the relevant factors and recorded his reasoned conclusion that it is in the public interest to place the Government Servant under suspension.

(ii) Where a Government Servant has been suspended on disciplinary proceedings contemplated, such proceedings 3/9

should be initiated immediately and finalized normally within a period of six months.

(iii) In cases, where a Government Servant has been suspended and the matter has been referred for investigation to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for enquiry, the latter should complete the enquiry and send the report to Government through the Vigilance Commission within one year (iv) In respect of cases referred to under items (ii) and (iii) above, the authority who ordered the suspension or the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, as the case may be, should, before the expiry of the period of three months, report the matter to the Head of the Department/Government, indicating the progress of the disciplinary action/investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the reasons for non completion of the work and the further time required for completing the disciplinary action / investigation and furnish reasons for continuing the suspension, if continued suspension is felt essential. If the authority which Initiated action in the first instance is the Head of the Department, the report has to be sent to Government.

(v) After the initial report referred to in item (iv) above, reports should be sent to Government at the end of every three months, indicating the further progress, so as to enable the Government to review the suspension and the progress of the case, for such action as may be necessary to ensure expeditious disposal.

4/9

(vi) The Head of the Department or the Government as the case may be, will examine the cases with reference to the subject matter of the disciplinary action/investigation in progress and the reported stage of progress and permit the continued suspension beyond three months/six months. Where the Government itself, have ordered suspension, it will examine the case on the same lines and pass similar order. (vii) The disciplinary authorities should ensure that the delay in processing the case is not due to delaying tactics of the Government Servant. They should ensure that all notices issued to the suspended Government Servant should reach him without any loss of time.

(viii) When the disciplinary authority comes to a conclusion suo-motu or after conclusion of the investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the disciplinary authority shall, while initiating action by issue of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be, examine with reference to the facts established, which form the basis for the charges, whether public interest or the needs for further proceedings will require continued suspension of the Government Servant already under suspension.

(ix) The time limits mentioned above will not be applicable to cases of Government Servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. However, while sanctioning 5/9

prosecution in such a criminal case, an examination similar to the one mentioned in item (vii) above shall be made by the competent authority (x) If, on examination of the case under items (vi), (viii) or (ix) above, continued suspension is considered not necessary, the suspension may be revoked in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 17(e)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be.

(xi) in cases where the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact and the disciplinary authority is not in a position to finalize the departmental disciplinary proceeding and if the criminal case is based on theon vigilance report and is pending before the court of law for which no reasons are explained explicitly, the authority compelent may take a decision by laking up review of suspension and post the Government Servant in a non-sensitive place in consultation with the appropriate investigating authority / Vigilance Commission case to case basis in view of the reason that prolonged suspension and paying subsistence allowance for a long period without extracting work is not at all acceptable. Such revocation of suspension can be made based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the delay in serving the memorandam of charges / charge sheet. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras P.Kannan case, given in para 5 above, shall be taken into 6/9

account.

(xii)Suspension will continue to be in force unless it is revoked as mentioned under item (x) above."

5. In the light of the above guidelines issued at paragraph 11 in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, it is obligatory on the part of the second respondent to review the orders of suspension dated 15.10.2025 and see whether it is in the interest of public to continue the petitioner suspension or to revoke the same pending disciplinary proceedings. But in the instant case, no such exercise appears to have undertaken by the second respondent, even after a lapse of eight months, it is all the more necessary for the second respondent to examine whether the continuation of the petitioner under suspension any further is warranted or not.

6. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to review the order of suspension taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Government at paragraph No.11 in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) 7/9

Department dated 04.08.2022 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10.06.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM TO

1. The Principal Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, (Government Museum Department Section), Secretariat, Chennai - 9..

2. The Director,, Department of Museum, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Curator,, Government Museum Department, Thirugogarnam, Pudukkotai.

8/9

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM and WMP(MD)Nos.11641 and 11645 of 2026 Date : 10/06/2026 9/9