Prolonged suspension beyond three months without serving charge memo is unsustainable.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

WP(MD)No.31632 of 2025 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in connection with the proceedings RC.No.1204548/ 2025/Q2 dated 21.08.2025, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 17(e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, has granted an order of interim stay by order dated on 10.11.2025 and the same is in operation as on date.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned suspension order has been issued malafidely and the petitioner on an earlier occasion filed WP(MD)No.14666 of 2025 challenging the order of transfer dated 22.05.2025, wherein the petitioner was transferred and in that place, the third respondent herein was accommodated on his request. As the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by an order dated 18.08.2025, the respondents have initiated the present proceedings and placed the petitioner under suspension by issuing the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 and on the very next day, i.e, on 23.05.2025, the third respondent herein was posted in the place of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that it is only with a view to accommodate the third respondent herein, the respondents 1 and 2 have transferred the petitioner and in some way or other they are trying to push the petitioner away from the Sub Treasury, Melur, where the petitioner was working.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in(2015) 7 SCC 291 and contended that even after a lapse of more than six months, the respondents have not issued any charge memo to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD)No.2427 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024. 

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022 also, the respondents are on obligation to review the orders of suspension on completion of three months period of suspension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suspension order has not been reviewed by the respondents as per the Government Order.

5. Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader submits that there are serious allegations of demand of bribe by the petitioner for processing various bills pertaining to the Lecturers and therefore, the Association of Lecturers/Teachers has made a complaint and basing on the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 21.02.2022, where the petitioner also appeared and his statement was also recorded. Only with a view to conduct a detailed enquiry into the said allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension through impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2025. The learned Additional Advocate General further tried to substantiate the delay in issuing the charge memo contending that because of the interim order passed by this Court in the abovesaid writ petition, the respondent authorities have not taken any further steps to issue charge memo against the petitioner.

6. Adding further, the learned Additional Advocate Gene