Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) In view of the fact that the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours, he was deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 15.07.2015 and orders have also been passed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and to that effect. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to remain under suspension and in the said circumstances, the petitioner appeared to have made a representation on 18.02.2016, seeking review of the suspension order. According to the petitioner, the criminal case registered against him remained at the FIR stage and no progress has been made at all. As no action was forthcoming from the authority concerned, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22638 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.06.2016, directing the respondent to pass orders on the continued suspension of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, an order was passed on 06.10.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner by citing the instructions issued by the Government on the subject. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the original suspension order dated 21.07.2015 and the subsequent rejection order dated 06.10.2016.

3. After notice, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the facts as stated above https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and have not been disputed. However, the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, are stated in paragraph No.6 of the counter, which is extracted hereunder:-

34. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another, 2015(7) SCC 291, deprecated the practice of protracted suspension and repeated renewal and indicated that a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension.

The Supreme Court said :-

“11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/ disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.
12.This Court is unable to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents particularly with reference to the citation, since those orders cited by him one the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other by a Division Bench of this Court were rendered prior to Ajay Kumar Choudhary case and therefore, it cannot hold the field any further after the pronouncement of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary case. In fact, after Ajay Kumar Choudhary case, numerous orders have been passed by the Division Bench as well as the learned single Judges of this Court following the legal principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directed reinstatement of the suspended employees.