A.Somasundararajan v. The Principal Secretary To Govt

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI and W.M.P.(MD)No.18525 of 2019 A.Somasundararajan ... Petitioner -VsThe Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1), Fort St. George, Chennai.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in G.O.(D)No.175, dated 03.07.2019 and quash the same and with a consequential direction, directing the respondent to review and revoke the suspension order.

For Petitioner : Ms.Porkodi Karnan, for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions.

For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order of the respondent dated 03.07.2019 and to direct the respondent to review and revoke the suspension order.

2.Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3.According to the petitioner, he is working as Assistant Engineer. A complaint was given by one S.Uchimakali against the petitioner and others, alleging that without executing the project, 1/3

the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2.60 crores. Based on the said complaint, two cases were registered and the same are pending in Special Case Nos.2 of 2017 and 3 of 2017, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended from service on 27.08.2018. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.7046 of 2019, challenging the order of suspension. This Court, by the order dated 29.04.2019 , made in W.P.(MD)No.7046 of 2019, as an interim measure, directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders in the light of Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, within a period of two weeks. The respondent, after considering the case of the petitioner, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for revocation of suspension, by order dated 03.07.2019, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal and passed without application of mind. The order of suspension should not be continued for long period. The respondent has not initiated any departmental disciplinary proceedings and the complaint was given by a person, who is not aggrieved and the same was given due to private dispute and prayed for setting aside the order of the respondent. 5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that serious charge of corruption and misappropriation are levelled against the petitioner and others. The criminal cases were registered and charge sheet has been filed.

If the petitioner is not suspended and he is allowed to work, he may destroy the evidence and the criminal proceedings will be affected and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record carefully. 7.From the materials on record, it is seen that serious charge of corruption and misappropriation are levelled against the petitioner and others and the criminal cases are pending in Special Case Nos.2 and 3 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.

When the criminal cases are pending, it is open to the respondent either to initiate parallel proceedings for the very same set of facts or wait for the result in the criminal cases and then decide either to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings or not. Similarly pending serious charges in criminal cases, it is open to the department either to suspend the employee or transfer him to some other place, instead of paying subsistence allowance without extracting any work from the employee.

continued the petitioner under suspension and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The reason given by the respondent is valid and in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Myr To The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1), Fort St. George, Chennai.

+1 CC to M/s.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate ( SR-92261[F] dated 16/10/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-92467[F] dated 17/10/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.21788 of 2019 16.10.2019 KK/SAR/08.11.2019/3P-4C/ 3/3