An employee, aware of the revocation of suspension, who refuses to report for duty is not entitled to benefits under the relevant Rules.

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 29.04.2013 and after some unsuccessful attempts to cancel the order of transfer from Muthukulathur to Kamuthi, the petitioner had joined at Kamuthi on 09.10.2013. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2016.

4. The writ petitioner had given a representation to the employer seeking to regularize his non-employment period between 18.04.2011 till he joined duty at Kamuthi office. Since the said representation was not expeditiously considered, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.5689 of 2019 to direct the TANGEDCO to pass orders on the petitioner''s application. This Court by an order dated 29.04.2019 had directed the employer to consider and pass orders within a period of four weeks after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 02.07.2019 by the appellant herein. As per the said order, his suspension period between 18.04.2011 to 21.10.2011 was treated as ''on duty. The period between 22.10.2011 and 10.11.2011 was treated as ''compulsory wait''. Therefore the non-employment during the above said two periods were regularised by the TANGEDCO.

5. As far as the period between 11.11.2011 to 08.10.2013 is concerned, it was treated as leave on loss of pay on the ground that despite receipt of order of revocation of suspension, the writ petitioner has not chosen to report for duty. This order was challenged in W.P(MD).No.15848 of 2019.

Contention of the parties

6.The writ petitioner had contended that as per Rule 20(ii)(c) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Standing Orders Clerical Cadre Rules (Rules), the employer has to regularize the suspension period as duty period once the employee is acquitted of the criminal charges. Relying on Rule 20(ii)(c) and Rule 20(ii)(d) of the said Rules, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that when an employee is acquitted from the criminal case, he is entitled to get his services regularised covering the entire period of suspension namely from 19.04.2011 to 08.10.2013. This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that Rule 20(ii)(c) and Rule 20(ii)(d) will be applicable only in cases where the suspension is continued till the employee is acquitted from the criminal case. In the present case, even during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, his suspension order was revoked on 22.10.2011 and the same was intimated to the writ petitioner on 10.11.2011. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot contend that he was under suspension during the entire period of criminal proceedings. After receipt of revocation order, the writ petitioner has not chosen to report for duty from 11.11.2011 onwards and he joined duty only on 09.10.2013. Therefore, the said