ORDER

Heard Mr.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.

2.This Writ Petition has been filed as against the order of suspension in R.C.No.3333/A1/2013 dated 25.09.2013, in and by which, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the ground that he has been involved in a criminal case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs. Union of India (UoI) and Others", (2015) 3 CTC 119) submits that the petitioner has been placed under prolonged suspension, i.e. nearly for the past 8 years and as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he can be accommodated in any of the non-sensitive posts.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that a case has been registered as against the petitioner, while he was working as Record Clerk in Sri Brakathambal Governmnent Higher Secondary School, Pudukottai for receiving bribe, by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department in Crime No.4 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(ii) r/w 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.09.2013. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, charge sheet has been laid and already 13 witnesses were already examined and 13 more witnesses have to be examined.

5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudary case, cited supra, wherein, it has been held that if it is a prolonged suspension, the delinquents can be accommodated in a non-sensitive post. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Padmanabhan Vs. The Director General of Police Vs. T. Kamarajan'' in W.A. No.3957 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019, has followed the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudary case, cited supra and held that the guidelines issued therein, cannot be applied to the cases of Prevention of Corruption Act. The relevant portion from the said decision as found in paragraphs 8 and 9 is extracted as under:

“8. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court observed that if within three months the memorandum was not served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The Supreme Court also observed that the Government was free to transfer a person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he might have and which he might use for obstructing the investigation against him.

“9. We are of the view that Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not lay down any absolute proposition that an order of suspension should never extend beyond three months. In fact, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the directions regarding the restriction on extension of a suspension order beyond three months would not apply as the appellant had been served with a charge sheet. The appellant had only been given the liberty to challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, if so advised, and it was clarified that the action of the respondents in continuing suspension would be subject to judicial review. In our view, the learned Single Bench erred in setting aside the suspension placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).”

6.In the light of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the Special Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

01.12.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No dn Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that th