The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspension is not a punishment and should be based on a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee. The court also emphasized the need for periodic review of suspension and set a time limit for the duration of suspension.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference No. Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner to revoke the suspension, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Senior Grade Conductor at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited in Sivakasi Branch, the Petitioner was temporarily suspended from service on 11.12.2016, for misappropriation of Corporation fund to the tune of Rs.250/- by re-issuing the tickets already issued

3. It is the contention of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the departmental proceedings also, but however, he has been kept under prolonged suspension without being revoked. Hence, this writ petition.

4. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is bereft of details and the fact is that charge sheet was issued on 09.12.2016. He further submitted that for want of clarification, the matter is pending and the request for revocation of suspension, more particularly, in a serious charge against the petitioner, need not be considered by this Court and the impugned order, dated 09.12.2016, refusing to revoke the suspension is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference.

5. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9085 of 2016 dated 11.03.2016 and W.P(MD)No.18218 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016, wherein, relying upon the decision of this Court in K.Selvamani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P(MD)No. 21014 of 2013 decided on 08.04.2014), this Court set aside the impugned suspension orders and directed that the petitioners therein shall be reinstated and posted in any non sensitive post preferably at a far off place. However, the decisions made in the abovesaid cases are not applicable to the case on hand. Further, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, nowhere in the affidavit, it is mentioned that departmental proceedings have been commenced and concluded.

6. I also had an occasion to consider the case pertaining to placing a person under suspension, wherein, I have discussed as follows:-

9. The order of suspension is not a punishment and the relationship between the employer and the employee subsists even during the period of suspension. When there is master and servant relationship, the suspension can be effected by the employer and it cannot be questioned except on certain grounds like competence of the Authority issuing the said order, want of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules, etc. Hence, as long as the competency of the authority issuing the suspension order is not challenged, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the suspension.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in 2013 (14) Scale 323 has relied on a number decisions and considered the issue relating to the order of suspension. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment (supra) are extracted hereunder:

"7. During suspension, relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. Thus, suspension order does not put an end to the service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary' deprivation of working in the office. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the Criminal Court, but it cannot be treated as a punishment even by any stretch of imagination in strict legal sense.(Vide: O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0670/1987: AIR 1987 SC 2257; and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0225/1999