Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the issue has been considered and decided by the Division Benches of this court from time to time and, therefore, the view expressed by this court earlier in time, i.e., the judgment in the case of T.Kamarajan, supra, should be followed, as the subsequent ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 judgment of this court in the case of R.Balaji, supra, has no reference to the earlier judgment and is thereby to be rendered per incuriam. The Division Bench in the case of T.Kamarajan, supra, has made reference of the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, and, therefore, the prayer was to take the view as has been expressed by the Division Bench in the case of T.Kamarajan, supra, as otherwise even prior to the aforesaid judgment, another Division Bench of this court in the case of Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Ltd v. R.Vengatasamy and others, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 33673, has taken the same view and held that the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down an absolute proposition of law in the matter of suspension, rather the judgment should have been read in the context it has been given. It was also observed in Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Ltd, supra, that the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied as a statute and, thereby, after traversing the facts of the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, the Division Bench refused to cause interference with the order of suspension. Reference of many other judgments was given ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 and would be dealt with at the time of consideration of the rival arguments.

"9. We are of the view that Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not lay down any absolute proposition that an order of suspension should never extend beyond three months. In fact, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 directions regarding the restriction on extension of a suspension order beyond three months would not apply as the appellant had been served with a charge sheet. The appellant had only been given the liberty to challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, if so advised, and it was clarified that the action of the respondents in continuing suspension would be subject to judicial review. In our view, the learned Single Bench erred in setting aside the suspension placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

787. The judgment in the case of R.P.Kapur, supra, rendered by the Five-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court was not cited by counsel who appeared in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra.

22. Moreover, there are a series of Constitution Bench judgments pertaining to a challenge to order of suspension, which were not placed for consideration before the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra. For instance, in Khem Chand v. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 687, a Five-Judges Bench of the Apex Court held as under:

21. In view of the above, we find reasons to cause interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the writ petitioner/non-appellant provide assistance on the issue, rather those judgments have been given referring to the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), without analyzing the fact that even in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the order of suspension was not interfered with by the Apex Court, though the charge-sheet in the said case was filed after three months since the date of initial suspension of the delinquent employee."