Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned suspension order in Proceedings No.E1/5136570/2023 la 2023 dated 12.07.2023 on the file of the little same고 same as 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner back to service with all service benefits within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G. la Anto Prince

For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order in Proceedings No.E1/5136570/2023 dated 12.07.2023 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension.도.

The petitioner herein, while working as a State Tax Officer at Manapparai Circle, Tiruchirappalli Division, was placed under suspension by the impugned proceedings dated 12.07.2023. A criminal case was also registered against him vide Crime No.8 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case of the petitioner is that he is an honest officer and that for having discharged his official duties in an effective and diligent manner, he was targeted by certain disgruntled persons, resulting in his suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, there has been no progress in the investigation and that no charge sheet has been filed as on date, despite the lapse of nearly three years from the date of registration of the crime.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any progress in the criminal case and without the initiation of any disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has been kept under prolonged suspension for about three years. The petitioner also claims to have submitted representations dated 21.11.2024 and 02.01.2025 seeking review of the suspension. However, the same have not been considered for revocation. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order of suspension dated 12.07.2023.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the orders of this Court, including the order of the Full Bench in W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022 (P.Kannan v. The Commissioner for Municipal Administration and others).

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, fairly submitted that the order of suspension is required to be reviewed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022 and that appropriate orders will be passed in this regard.

Through G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, the Government has laid down certain guidelines and provided for the review of suspension from time to time based on the facts and circumstances of each case, in the interest of the State as well as the respective employees, in paragraph 11 of the said G.O., which reads as under:

“11. The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:-

(i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint. Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concerned must be clear in mind that it is necessary, Prolonged suspension means that Government pays a Government Servant without extracting any work from him. In view of the above position, the suspension should not be resorted to unless the concerned authority has considered all the relevant factors and recorded his reasoned conclusion that it is in t