Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
R. Sampath
Versus
The Collector The Collector's office Kancheepuram district & Another
W.P.No.7126 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 06-10-2009
Suspension Order - Review of Suspension Order - The court directed the respondent to review the suspension order, consider revocation, and posting of the petitioner in another place, taking into account the delay in reaching a final decision and the petitioner's receipt of 75% salary without working.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a record clerk, was suspended on 01.09.2006, and despite the completion of the enquiry, no final decision had been taken. The petitioner had been receiving 75% of the salary without working.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to review the suspension order, consider revocation, and posting of the petitioner in another place, taking into account the delay in reaching a final decision and the petitioner's receipt of 75% salary without working.
Issues: Delay in reaching a final decision on suspension, unequal treatment compared to other officers, and the petitioner's representation pending consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in reaching a final decision on suspension, coupled with the unequal treatment of the petitioner compared to other officers, warranted the court's direction to review the suspension order and consider revocation and posting of the petitioner in another place.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent to review the suspension order, consider revocation, and posting of the petitioner in another place, and to pass orders on the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.
The petitioner herein was working as a record clerk and while he was working in the said capacity, an order of suspension has been passed on 01.09.2006 by the second respondent exercising the power under Rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was paid the suspension allowance as per fundamental Rule 53(1).
2. In pursuant to the said suspension order, an enquiry was initiated and the said enquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Civil Proceedings is in progress. In fact, all the witnesses have been examined and the matter is posted for examination of the Investigation Officer.
3. Inasmuch as the suspension having been passed as early as on 01.09.2006 and no final decision has been taken so far, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second respondent will have to be directed to review the order of suspension by taking into consideration of the fact that the suspension order having been imposed from 01.09.2006 and the petitioner has been receiving 75% of the salary even without working. The second respondent is directed to consider the revocation of suspension order and also he is further directed to consider the posting of the petitioner in some other place, if the order of suspension is revoked. The petitioner has already given a representation on 12.06.2008 and the same is pending consideration with the second respondent. The second respondent should pass orders on the said representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The second respondent is also directed to consider the fact that the two other officers, who are identically placed to the petitioner, namely Mr. T.Krishna Moorthy and Mr. V.Ravi Kumar have not been placed under suspension.
4. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
