Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned suspension order in Roc.No. 164/2025/A2 dated 08.01.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service as Village Administrative Officer within time stipulated.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned suspension order in Roc.No.164/2025/A2 dated 08.01.2025 passed by the second respondent, to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Village Administrative Officer within a stipulated time.

2. Heard Mr.K.Dinesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. This is a case where the petitioner, while working as a Village Administrative Officer of Jeyamangalam Bit–II Village, was placed under suspension through the impugned proceedings dated 08.01.2025, consequent upon her alleged involvement in Crime No.2 of 2022 registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department for the alleged misappropriation of Government lands and issuance of pattas in favour of third parties.

4. Along with the petitioner, several others, namely the Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar, and Surveyor were also stated to have been placed under suspension on the very same allegations in connection with the said crime.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted a representation on 17.03.2025 seeking review of her suspension. However, the respondents have not taken any action either to revoke the suspension or to review the same. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned suspension proceedings dated 08.01.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the other delinquent employees, who were placed under suspension along with the petitioner, have all been reinstated in service and are continuing to work as on date. However, the case of the petitioner has not been reviewed by the respondents. Therefore, he seeks appropriate orders from this Court directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, taking into consideration the fact that the other delinquents, who were involved in the very same offence, have already been reinstated.

5. On the other hand, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the cases of the other co-delinquents may differ from those of the petitioner and that it is for the respondents to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. He further submitted that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, the second respondent is under an obligation to review the order of suspension dated 08.01.2025 and also drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the said Government Order.

6. This Court has carefully considered the matter. There is no doubt that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.01.2025 and that the said suspension has continued for more than one year without being reviewed, as on date. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, particularly paragraph 11, it is obligatory on the part of the second respondent to review the order of suspension after the expiry of three months. However, such a review has not taken place even after the lapse of one year. Paragraph 11 of the said Government Order reads as follows:

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