Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) By consent, the writ appeal is taken up and being disposed of in the admission stage itself.

2.This appeal has been filed against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1398 of 2015 dated 21.10.2016, wherein the appellants herein are directed to reinstate the respondent herein in any non-sensitive post where the Department feels that the respondent can be accommodated, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 .

4.When the matter was taken up for consideration by the writ Court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, has placed reliance upon the decision passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.18326 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016 (G.Chelliah v. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai), wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 291], directed the respondent therein to revoke the order of suspension and post the respondent therein in any non-sensitive post where the Department feels that the respondent can be accommodated. Placing reliance on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for passing such order by this Court.

5.Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257, which has been referred to in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, and also Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and also considering paragraph-21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, wherein it is stated that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges / charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer / employee, and if the memorandum of charges / charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension, and also based on the Circular of the State Government dated 23.07.2015, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the appellants herein / respondents therein to reinstate the respondent herein in any non-sensitive post where the Department feels that he can be accommodated as per the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case.

16.Rightly, the learned single Judge of this Court has taken into consideration all the above aspects which have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, while rendering the judgment in the writ petition which is challenged in this writ appeal.

17.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, relied upon the stand taken by the Government by virtue of the Circular in Letter No.43634/N/2016-1 dated 20.12.2016 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and another vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1. The said circular is non-est in the eye of law, because of the fact that the said circular came to be issued and brought into effect only during December 2016, whereas the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case is much prior to that. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1997) 4 SCC 1, is also much prior to that. Hence the said circular cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.