Madras High Court
R. Sakthivel vs The District Collector on 6 January, 2012
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 6-1-2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION No.27112 OF 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 R. Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Pro.A2/4836/11 dated 9.9.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to pay the 75% subsistence allowance from 1.7.2011 onwards and to disburse the arrears within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, Government Advocate O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the second respondent reducing the payment of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from 50% to 25% by invoking FR.53(1)(a).
2. The petitioner entered into service as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman on temporary basis on 1.12.1984 and he was brought into regular establishment from 12.1.2000. Petitioner was designated as Firka Surveyor-in-charge with effect from 13.6.2008 and posted in the present station on 20.7.2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Firka Surveyor in Tindivanam Circle, on 29.12.2010 he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit, Villupuram on the basis of the complaint given by one Elumalai Goundar, Nolambur Village, Tindivanam, alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification for change of patta in the name of sons of the complainant viz., Babu and Murugan.
4. Petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2010 and later on released on bail. Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 30.12.2010 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him and the same is under investigation. Petitioner was sanctioned subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his salary. The said amount of subsistence allowance is now reduced to 25% through the impugned order dated 9.9.2011, which is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Rule relied on viz., FR.53(1(a) is not relevant and the rule applicable is FR.53(1)(a)(ii).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FR.53(1)(a)(ii) contemplates reduction of subsistence allowance if the suspension period is prolonged for reasons attributed to the Government servant and not otherwise.
6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not residing in the headquarters. However, in the counter affidavit no reason is attributed to the petitioner for the prolonged suspension.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has neither challenged the departmental proceedings, nor the criminal proceedings and hence no reason can be attributed to the petitioner for the prolonged suspension.
8. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondents can reduce the subsistence allowance from 50% to 25% through the impugned order.
9. The investigation in respect of the criminal case registered against the petitioner is over and charge sheet is also filed and the case is now numbered as Special Case No.8 of 2011. Departmental proceedings is also initiated against the petitioner and the same is pending.
10. FR.53(1)(a)(ii) states that the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding fifty percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, i the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant.
11. No such reason is stated by the respondents in the impugned order for reducing the subsistence allowance so far paid to the petitioner. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of statutory rule FR.53(1)(a)(ii) and to pass fresh orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till fresh orders are passed, the respondents are directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner at the rate at which the petitioner was receiving subsistence allowance prior to passing the impugned order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vr To
1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Villupuram District, Villupuram