JUDGMENT :

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.

The writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.7.2021 whereby the writ petition challenging the order of suspension was allowed. A direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner/non-appellant was given, though with liberty to the appellants to transfer him to some other place.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the suspension order dated 26.7.2019 and the subsequent order dated 17.4.2021 passed by the appellants rejecting the writ petitioner/non-appellant's representation. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner/non-appellant was allowed by the writ court mainly relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291. It was mainly on the ground that if a delinquent employee is suspended from service on registration of a criminal case or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and if charge-sheet or charge memo is not filed or served on the delinquent employee within three months, the order of suspension has to be revoked.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delinquent employee was suspended by the order dated 26.7.2019 when he was caught red-handed accepting bribe. A criminal case was registered against him on 26.7.2019. Looking to the serious allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and the writ petitioner/non-appellant having been caught red-handed, he was placed under suspension and the representation to recall the order of suspension was not accepted looking to the gravity and seriousness of the allegation.

4. The learned Single Judge ignored the allegation levelled against the delinquent while passing the judgment causing interference with the order of suspension mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet in the criminal case was not submitted within three months. It is ignoring the fact that Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations does not provide for automatic revocation of the order of suspension in case charge-sheet or charge memo is not given or filed within three months. In view of the above, a prayer is made to cause interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is more so when the Division Bench of this court has dealt with the same issue in the case of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) and others v. A.Srinivasan, 2020 Lab.I.C. 3814 [vide judgment dated 2.9.2020 passed in W.A.No.599 of 2020], wherein the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was also considered.

5. According to learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, the learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) ignoring the Larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.P.Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787. It is also submitted that the analogy to serve the charge memo or charge-sheet within a period of three months evolved by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was not in reference to the service rules governing the delinquent employee, but based on Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, "the Cr.P.C.") having no application in service matters. It is submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) mainly relied on the provisions of the Cr.P.C. ignoring that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. have no application to service matters. Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides for the period of filing of the final report in a case when an accused is behind the bars. If an accused has been arrested and is on remand, the charge-sheet/final report in such case has to be submitted within sixty days or ninety days depending on the sentence imposable in reference to the offence. In case the accused is behind the bars and the charge-sheet is not submitted within sixty or ninety days, as the case may be, he would be entitled to bail. The aforesaid an