Prolonged suspension of a government servant without timely review violates established legal principles, necessitating prompt disciplinary proceedings.

 ORDER :

N.Mala, J.

Writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.06.2019.

2. The petitioner was working as a Head Master and posted in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Pannaikinaru. While so, a criminal complaint was lodged by one Mohan, against the Limited Liability Partnership Company named as Rich India Agro Tech Ltd. wherein, the petitioners husband was one of the partners in the said company. In pursuance of the criminal complaint, an F.I.R was registered against the petitioner and her husband on 02.06.2019, under Sections 406, 420 , 120(B) of Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act , 1997. The petitioner was ranked as Accused No.6 and her husband was ranked as Accused No.3. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2019. As the petitioner was imprisoned for more than 48 hours, she was placed under suspension under Clause(2) of sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules , by the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 11.06.2019. The petitioner was placed under suspension for nearly 1 ½ years without the subsistence allowance being paid to her since December-2019. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.(Ms).No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 30.01.1996, the suspension of the Government servant had to be reviewed every six months, but in the petitioner's case, for nearly 1 ½ years, she was placed under suspension, contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India . The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 11.06.2019.

3. The respondents filed a detailed counter stating inter alia, that, as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, it was not just and proper to permit the petitioner to continue in Government service. The respondents citing rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973, contended that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute sincerity and devotion to duty. The respondents contended that as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, the question of review of the order of suspension was not applicable to the petitioner. The respondents in their counter further contended that the petitioner was enlarged on bail, on condition that, she should appear before the Court and sign weekly once at the office hours. The respondents contended that unless the subject Court relaxed the bail condition, the petitioner could not be reinstated in service. The respondents therefore prayed that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India and other Judgments annexed in the typed set of papers, submitted that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner for 1 ½ years was against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited Judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order on 11.06.2019, and the petitioner continued to be under suspension for more than six years without any review or revocation of the suspension order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the criminal proceedings are still pending and therefore the suspension of the petitioner for about six years now, is unwarranted.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and on the basis of the instructions given at the time of hearing, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) rules, 1955, by issuing a charge memo. Enquiry was conducted on the charge memo and the enquiry r