The revocation of suspension should be based on the facts of each case and the gravity of charges, and cannot be continued endlessly without initiating disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ku.Aa.No. 622/Me.Pho/MaMiPaVa/MaThu/NiA/NiB.1/Vu.3/2016, dated 12.07.2016, on the file of the Respondent No.5 and the impugned proceedings in Letter (Ms)No.43/N/2015-3, dated 26.04.2016, on the file of the Respondent No.1 and the consequential impugned order in Memorandum(Per)No.31294/A18/A181/2016-1, dated 27.06.2016, on the file of the Respondent No.2 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction, to direct the Respondent No.5 to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer (Grade-I) within the time period stipulated by this Court.)

1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 12.07.2016, on the file of the 5th respondent and the impugned proceedings in letter, dated 26.04.2016, on the file of the Respondent No.1 and the consequential impugned, dated 27.06.2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer (Grade-I) within the time period stipulated by this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Filter Operator on 17.09.1986 at TNEB, Madurai. In 1987, the petitioner was transferred to Nagercoil. Thereafter, in 1989, he was promoted as Junior Engineer II Grade and posted in Ramnad. In 1998, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer I Grade and posted in Dindigul. In 2002, the petitioner was transferred back to Madurai. The petitioner joined the present posting as Junior Engineer I Grade/Distribution at Panaiyur, Madurai District on 14.08.2014.

3. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in FIR No.9 of 2015, dated 01.10.2015, on the file of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell, Madurai, alleging that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.3,500/- from one M.Sonai, for giving temporary electricity connection. In pursuance to the registration of criminal case, 5th respondent issued suspension order, dated 02.10.2015 and placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner remained in suspension without any enquiry or charge sheet. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 04.01.2016, requesting for revocation of suspension, but no actions were taken. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.2569 of 2016 and this Court, vide order, dated 12.04.2016, directed the 4th respondent therein to consider the petitioner''s representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance to law within six weeks.

4. In spite of the order of this Court in the above said writ petition, no orders were passed. Hence, the petitioner sent a contempt notice, dated 22.06.2016. Thereafter, the 5th respondent issued the impugned order, rejecting the claim to revoke the suspension referring to the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 26.04.2016 and the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, dated 27.06.2016.

5. The petitioner submitted that even without considering the fact that the petitioner is in suspension for about 10 months, the official respondents have passed the impugned orders.

6. Heard Mr.G.Karthik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and M/s.M.Parameswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension and the same was not revoked even though ten months had lapsed. The petitioner submitted representations and also approached this Court vide W.P.(MD)No.2569 of 2016 and this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioner based on Ajay Kumar Choudary case Vs. Union of India. Now the petitioner is under suspension for more than 8 years, the petitioner is seeking to reinstate him.

8. The learned Counsel appear