Advocates:
['M/s R Jayaprakash', '', 'R S MAITREYA', 'N BHUVANESWARAN', 'B SIDDESWARAN', 'M RAKHI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.10.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI

WRIT PETITION NO.28260 OF 2018

AND

W.M.P.NO.32946 AND 32949 OF 2018

K.Silambarasan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Director

Medical and Rural Health Services,

DMS Compound, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Joint Director,

Medical and Rural Health Services,

Vellore District, Vellore.

3. The Medical Officer,

Government Hospital,

Vaniambadi, Vellore District.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call

for records pertaining to the proceedings of the second

respondent in Ref.No.6051/SC/17, dated 18.09.2018 and to quash

the same as illegal and ultravires and consequently, to direct

the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Male

Nurse in the third respondent Hospital.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan Senior Counsel

for M/s. R.Jayaprakash

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Kavitha

Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard, Mr.R.Singaravelan, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Kavitha, learned

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of

respondents. On consent of the learned counsel appearing on

either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the

stage of admission.

2.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated

18.09.2018, whereby, his prayer for revocation of suspension has

not been considered.

3.

It appears that the petitioner being indicted in a

criminal case, was put under deemed suspension under Rule 17 (e)

of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,

as he was taken to custody. Subsequently, the petitioner has

come out of the custody. Thereafter, the petitioner came to this

Court seeking to quash such suspension order, dated 29.08.2017

by filing W.P.No.3858 of 2018. This Court, by order, dated

07.08.2018, disposed of the same with a direction to the second

respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for

revocation of the suspension and also payment of subsistence

allowance as permissible. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner has been paid with subsistence allowance. But, so far

as representation made for revocation of suspension is

concerned, the same has been rejected, indicating therein that

G.O.Ms.No.40 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N) Department,

dated 31.01.1996 prohibits for revocation of suspension in a

criminal case pending against an individual. The petitioner

came to challenge the same in this Writ Petition to be illegal,

arbitrary and contrary to law.

4.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the suspension of the petitioner, which is a deemed

one pursuant to the mandate of Rule 17 (e) (2) is temporary one.

The aforesaid deemed suspension, which is pursuant to the

petitioner being in custody for more than 48 hours is revocable

in exercise of power under Rule 17 (e) (6) by the Authorities

suspending the petitioner or any Authorities superior to him,

after release of the petitioner from custody, if they deem fit

and proper, taking note of the facts and situation of the case.

It appears that the petitioner was indicted in a criminal case

for receiving illegal gratification, but, in the meanwhile,

though more than three months have elapsed, neither the

chargesheet in the criminal case has been filed against the

petitioner nor any charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding has

been issued for such indictment alleging any misconduct. The

petitioner, as such, continuing under the ignominy of suspension

without any justifiable material against him. Taking note of

the sam