Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
P.Padma – Appellant
Versus
Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P.No.49729 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Krishna Ravindran
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing Counsel
In suspension matters, the existence of a prima facie case upholding public interest is critical for maintaining the action.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was suspended following a viral video showing her counting currency.
Findings of Court:
The court determined no illegality in the suspension order.
Issues: The court framed questions around the validity of the suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondents showed a prima facie case for the suspension due to public interest.
Result: The Writ Petition stands dismissed with directions for the expeditious completion of the enquiry.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against suspension order based on public interest due to viral video. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about prima facie evidence for suspension and respondents' justification. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations about enqury process and dismissal of the petition. (Para 6) |
| 4. writ petition outcome with dismissal and unfinished enquiry. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension dated 10.11.2025 passed by the first respondent, thereby the petitioner was placed under suspension from service.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer (Distribution), under the first respondent. While being so, a video was circulated in social media showing her counting currency notes. The video went viral. In view of the same and pursuant to a public interest petition, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner received any bribe and that the currency counted by her belonged to her personally. While she was counting her own money, a video was taken without her knowledge and uploaded on social media. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, no prima facie case has been made out to warrant the suspension of the petitioner.
5. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after the video went viral in social media, in the interest of maintaining public confidence, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Now, the vigilance enqiry is pending. Therefore, the respondents made out a prima facie case to suspend the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of suspension dated 10.11.2025 passed by the first respondent. However, the respondents are directed to complete the vigilance enquiry expeditiously and the petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation seeking revocation of the suspension. On receipt of such representation, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the said representation on the basis of the outcome of the vigilance enquiry.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
