BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD)No.14650 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12846 of 2024 A.R.Sankaralingam ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration, O/o. The Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration, DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.

2.The District Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Medical College Campus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District – 627 011. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in R.No.3055/2024/S12/FSD, dated 29.06.2024 and the consequential order in R.No. 3055/2024/S12/FSD, dated 29.06.2024 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire with all service and monetary benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders in R.No.3055/2024/S12/FSD, dated 29.06.2024 and in R.No.3055/2024/S12/FSD, dated 29.06.2024 on the file of the first respondent with a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire with all service and monetary benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as the Food Safety Officer at Palayamkottai Zone, Tirunelveli Corporation and a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner and his wife in Crime No.12 of 2023 on the false allegation. He has been placed under suspension at the verge of his retirement ie., 29.06.2024 and he was also not allowed to retire on the date of superannuation ie., on 30.06.2024.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.111, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 11.10.2021, has held that the government servants should not be placed under suspension on the last date of his service. Even though a case has been registered in the year 2023 itself, there was no progress till the date of the superannuation and therefore, placing a government servant under suspension on the last date of his superannuation is unsustainable and so, he prays this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow him to retire subject to the result of the criminal case.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the guidelines for avoiding suspension on the last date of his retirement issued in the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No. 111, Human Resource Management (N) Department, dated 11.10.2021. The Government has reiterated the guidelines already issued in G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N)

Department, dated 08.06.2007, to avoid last minute suspension. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents were not aware of the case registered against the petitioner and only after getting the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption dated 10.05.2024, they came to know about that a case has been registered against the petitioner as early as in the year 2023 in Crime No.12 of 2023 and that the investigation is pending. The gravity of the allegations are very serious in nature and therefore, the respondents thought it fit to keep the petitioner under suspension before his retirement. Even though the general rule states that the government servant shall not