The delinquent is entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period, and the court may direct the respondents to pay the full subsistence allowance, regularize the suspension period, and pay pension and terminal benefits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 21.06.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2013.)

1. This contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 2603 of 2013, dated 21.06.2016. The Writ Petition was filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 05.03.2008 and 29.10.1999 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant and monetary benefits and also to regularize the period of suspension as duty period.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as a Lineman in the Thirumaiyam Rural Co-operative Society on 30.04.1983. During the said services, the petitioner have completed Engineering graduation during 1990 and he was redesignated as Assistant Engineer with effect from 31.12.1996. The Managing Director of the said Society placed the petitioner under suspension on 29.10.1999, since a criminal case was registered by the Vigilance Department. In the meanwhile, the Society was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the affairs and liabilities were taken over. All the employees were absorbed to Board service on 06.04.2002.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation to revoke the suspension, since the petitioner is under suspension for more than 9 years and also requested to pay subsistence allowance. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 298 of 2008 and this Court, vide order, dated 10.01.2008, directed to consider and pass order. Then, the order, dated 05.03.2008, was passed stating that there is no possibility to revoke the order of suspension, since the criminal case is pending, the employees of the erstwhile society were absorbed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and there are not absorbing the suspended employees of the erstwhile society. This claim was refuted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is receiving subsistence allowance from the TNEB and not from the society. Again, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 15.03.2008, stating the pendency of criminal case is not the fault of the petitioner and there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. The final report also filed and the case is taken on file in C.C. No. 2 of 2001 and the case is pending for more than 10 years.

4. The respondents have framed guidelines for review of suspension wherein it is stated that beyond five years of suspension, it shall be reviewed, even though the criminal case is pending. Hence, the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 20.06.2010, which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent on 28.06.2010. The petitioner submitted reminder on 08.07.2011 stating that the suspension from 28.09.1999 is prolonged suspension and the petitioner was under suspension for more than 14 years. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.12718 of 2011 and the respondents submitted that in the criminal case few witnesses were cross examined and it is in the stage of delivering judgment and the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 09.03.2012. Again, the petitioner submitted representation, dated 14.08.2012, stating the criminal case would take few years to complete and prayed to revoke the suspension.

5. Since the prayer of the petitioner to review the suspension order was rejected, vide order dated 05.03.2008, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition to quash the impugned order, dated 05.03.2008 and the suspension order, dated 29.10.1999. The said Writ Petition was allowed, vide order, dated 21.06.2016, wherein, this Court has set aside the impugned suspension order, dated 29.10.1999, passed by the second respondent and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant and monetary benefits.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents had preferred a writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.440 of 2017 and this Court, vide order, dated 10.08.201