Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Vetrivel – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional officer – Respondent
W.P.No. 6236 of 2022 | W.M.P.Nos. 6300 & 6302 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Vijayakumar, G.Bharadwaj
For the Respondents: S.Anitha

Prolonged suspension without issuing charge sheet is impermissible; a government circular cannot override the binding law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(e)(2) - Suspension - Prolonged suspension without charge sheet - Government letter dated 26.04.2016 cannot override law laid down by Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India - Suspension pending criminal trial should not be mechanically continued - Reinstatement in non-sensitive post directed.

(B) Administrative Law - Government Circular - Circular contrary to binding precedent under Article 141 is of no effect - Authorities cannot rely on circular that has been quashed by High Court in earlier proceedings.

(C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Petitioner appointed as Village Administrative Officer on compassionate basis - Suspension order passed after registration of FIR for alleged demand of bribe - Charge sheet not filed even after seven months - Held, prolonged suspension impermissible.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer on compassionate appointment after his father's death in harness. During his tenure, a complaint was lodged against him by one K.Bhuvaneswari alleging demand of bribe, resulting in registration of FIR by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. The respondent placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 22.07.2021. The petitioner sent a representation for revocation of suspension, but the respondent rejected it relying on a Government letter dated 26.04.2016. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the suspension order and the rejection order.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Government letter dated 26.04.2016 relied upon by the respondent was already quashed in WP.No.4493 of 2016 (S.Ramu case) as being contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India. The court noted that prolonged suspension without initiation of disciplinary proceedings or filing of charge sheet is not permissible. The court also referred to the Division Bench judgment in WA.No.1657 of 2019 (Director General of Police vs D.Jayakumar) which upheld reinstatement in a non-sensitive post. Applying the ratio of Ajay Kumar Choudhary and State of Tamil Nadu vs Pramod Kumar, the court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in a non-sensitive post unconnected with his previous work, as the charge sheet was yet to be filed.

Issues: (i) Whether the prolonged suspension of the petitioner without issuance of charge sheet is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the respondent could rely on a Government letter dated 26.04.2016 which had already been quashed by the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that suspension cannot be continued indefinitely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary applies to State services as well. A government circular which is in teeth of the Supreme Court's judgment cannot override the binding law under Article 141. Since the petitioner's suspension was based solely on a quashed circular, the impugned order was vitiated. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in a non-sensitive post pending completion of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. Result : Writ Petition allowed. Impugned orders quashed. Petitioner directed to be appointed in a non-sensitive post. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs.

ORDER

The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings dated 09.12.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.2595/2021/A2 and also the impugned order of suspension issued vide proceedings dated 22.07.2021 in reference No.2595/2021/A2. The facts giving raise to the above writ petition is set out herein below.

2. The petitioner’s father who was in the Government service died in harness on 22.04.2013 and consequently, the petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer on compassionate appointment on 30.06.2014. He was appointed in Vadugapatti A Village, Erode. After putting in 7 years of service, he was regularised in service of the respondent by proceedings dated 18.05.2021. Ever since, he has been continuing in the said post.

3. During the petitioner’s tenure as VAO, one K.Bhuvaneswari, had approached him with reference to issue of transfer of patta in her favour. Later, the said Bhuvaneswari had filed a false complaint against the petitioner resulting in registration of FIR No.7/AC/2021 dated 20.07.2021, on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode. The said complaint was nothing but vexatious and false one.

4. Thereafter, the respondent issued an order of suspension by proceedings in reference No.2594/2021/A2 dated 22.07.2021 under Rule 17 (e) (2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter called the Rules and the petitioner was placed under suspension. This order was served on the petitioner on 22.07.2021 and at the time of filing of this writ petition, the order of suspension was more than 7 months old and neither the charge sheet nor charge memo in proceeding had been issued.

5. The petitioner sent a representation dated 25.09.2021, seeking to review of the order of suspension and sought reinstatement in service. Though the representation was duly received, no action was taken at the end of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner had filed WP.No.23113 of 2021, for issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to revoke the suspension order by considering his representation dated 25.09.2021.

6. This Court, by order dated 28.10.2021 had directed the respondent to consider and pass order on the representation. Immediately, on receiving the order copy in WP.No.23113 of 2021, the petitioner had once again submitted a representation dated 09.11.2021, enclosing a copy of the order in the writ petition and requested the respondent to comply with the same. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The respondent have filed a counter denying the claim of the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner in trap proceeding had once again reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.10,000/- and directed the complainant to give money to the lady who was running “Spice Net E Service Center”. They would also submit that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai, had called for a report vide their letter dated 26.07.2021. At this juncture, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 25.09.2021 to the respondent herein. They would also submit that they could not consider the representation as the criminal case was pending before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode, and charge sheet was yet to be framed. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Ultimately, they sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prolonged suspension is not permissible under law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases have held so.

9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

10. In the order dated 09.12.2021, reference was made to a letter dated 26.04.2016, bearing Government Letter (MS).No.43/N/2015-3, to reject the request for revoking the suspension.

11. It is seen that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHAM.Vetrivel – AppellantVersusThe Revenue Divisional officer – RespondentW.P.No. 6236 of 2022 | W.M.P.Nos. 6300 & 6302 of 2022

Prolonged suspension without issuing charge sheet is impermissible; a government circular cannot override the binding law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Vetrivel – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional officer – Respondent
W.P.No. 6236 of 2022 | W.M.P.Nos. 6300 & 6302 of 2022