Prolonged suspension reviewed; reinstatement considered based on parity, no recovery, and Supreme Court guidelines.

ORDER

Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.Challenging the order of suspension dated 21.06.2024, the petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

3.The petitioner was working as a Salesman in Shop No.9744, located in Thirumakottai, Mannarkudi, [Employee No.512], from 2004 onwards. While so, the 4^th respondent joined as the District Manager in Tiruvarur District. During 2024, the Inspector of Police, DVAC, arrested the petitioner and the 4^th respondent for acceptance of bribe and a case in Crime No.1/2024 came to be registered for the alleged offence u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the petitioner was in judicial custody, he was served with the impugned order of suspension dated 21.06.2024. On coming out on bail, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent on 09.02.2026 and till date, no reply was forth coming. The petitioner further states that he came to know that the 4^th respondent, who was arrayed as A1 in the aforesaid criminal case, filed a writ petition before this Court in WP.No.9126/2025 and this Court, vide order dated 16.04.2025, allowed the writ petition, directing reinstatement. Hence, the petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, is before this Court by way of the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

5.It is seen that the 4^th respondent who has been arrayed as A1, was reinstated into service pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 16.04.2025 made in WP.No.9126/2025. Paragraph No.7 of the order dated 16.04.2025 reads thus:-

‘’7.It is a matter of record that the petitioner has been under continuous suspension for nearly ten months as on date. The respondents are directed to consider the possibility of posting the petitioner in a District outside Thiruvarur District, in a non sensitive post. While doing so, the respondents shall take into account the fact that no amount was recovered from the petitioner, as also noted by the learned Single Judge in Crl.OP.No.25528/2024. The respondents shall further consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another [Civil Appeal No.1912/2015, dated 16.02.2015], and arrive at a considered decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order’’

6.The petitioner herein is also under continuous suspension from 21.06.2024, for more than one year. The writ petitioner also requires similar treatment as that of the co-accused, G.Sakthi Premchander.

6.Hence, the writ petition is disposed of on the lines of Paragraph No.7 of the order dated 16.04.2025 made in WP.No.9126/2025 and the respondents are directed to consider the possibility of posting the petitioner in any non sensitive post outside Tiruvarur District. It is made clear that such decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.