O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension passed by the respondent on 13.07.2013 and the order dated 24.02.2016 and for direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Town Planning Officer, Grade II at Dharmapuri Municipality. A criminal case came to be lodged based on the complaint given against the petitioner and an FIR was registered in Crime No.3/AC/2013 and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.07.2013. Thereafter, the suspension order came to be passed by the respondent on 13.07.2013.

3. The suspension order continued for a long time and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. No.34172 of 2015 challenging the suspension order. This Court, by order dated 28.10.2015, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent to consider reviewing / revoking the order of suspension. The respondent again rejected the request made by the Petitioner. Hence, both the original order and the subsequent order have become subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr.Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been kept under suspension from the year 2013 onwards and till date, even in the criminal case, only one witness has been examined. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for such a prolonged period and learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others] and also the judgment in the [State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Promod Kumar]. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.11967 of 2018 dated 25.07.2019.

5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case and it has been stated that the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving bribe and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, the suspension order came to passed against the petitioner. This suspension order was again reviewed and it was found that the same cannot be suspended or revoked in view of the serious criminal charges against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A further stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that if the petitioner is again taken back to service, it will be a disincentive for the public servants who are committed to a honest conduct in public service.

6. Mr. P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that considering the seriousness of the offences committed by the petitioner and also the fact that the final report has also been filed and the trial has also commenced in criminal case, the suspension order should not be interfered at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that the suspension order passed against the petitioner was again reconsidered and keeping in mind the seriousness of the charge, the respondent has decided not to revoke the suspension order. Learned counsel submitted that a time limit can be fixed for the completion of the criminal case and till then, the order of suspension can continue against the petitioner.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

8. The only issue that requires consideration in this case is as to whether the suspension of the petitioner has to continue, since the petitioner is already out of service for the last seven years and he is being paid subsistence allowance without extracting any work. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.11967 of 2018, dated 25.07.2019, wherein, this Court had an occasion to consider the entire law on the subject. The relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder.

“5.According to the learned c