Back
ANITA SUMANTH, R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Ramanathapuram – Appellant
Versus
K. Kanthavel – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 16.09.2019 in W.P(MD).No.15848 of 2019.)
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J
1. The respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein.
Factual Matrix:
2.The writ petitioner was working as an Assessor in Muthukulathur Section of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) in Ramanathapuram District. He was implicated in a criminal case in Crime No.63 of 2011 on the file of Muthukulathur Police Station and he was arrested on 18.04.2011. In view of the arrest, the TANGEDCO had passed an order of suspension on 20.04.2011 suspending the writ petitioner with effect from 18.04.2011. The TANGEDCO had passed an order on 22.10.2011 revoking the order of suspension and transferring him to Kamuthi Section.
3. According to the employer, the writ petitioner had refused to receive the the said order and it was pasted upon the door on 07.05.2012. The employer had contended that the order of revocation of suspension was sent by the registered post and the same was received by the writ petitioner on 10.11.2011. The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case on 29
An employee, aware of the revocation of suspension, who refuses to report for duty is not entitled to benefits under the relevant Rules.
The court upheld the authority's discretion to continue suspension in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for further proceedings.
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so ma....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in justifying a suspension and determining e....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
Prolonged suspension without filing a charge sheet or initiating departmental proceedings is unjustifiable and unsustainable in law.
Acquittal in prior criminal proceedings necessitates regularization of suspension period as duty, regardless of subsequent charges.
Suspension due to criminal charges should not deprive the employee of service benefits upon acquittal, as per Regulation 57(A).
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
