V.Saravanan vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 24 March, 2022
9. In the overall consideration of the above scenario, the Courts
have started interfering with the prolonged suspension when it found that
there was no progress in the criminal case or in departmental
proceedings. If there are compelling reasons and periodical review of the
prolonged suspension, reflecting proper application of mind, for instance,
the employee concerned is entirely responsible for the delay in completion
of the criminal trial or the departmental proceedings, in that event, the
Court cannot be justified in interfering with the suspension merely on the
ground, the suspension being prolonged. The reliance placed in the letter
dated 23.07.2015, is not a valid ground for prolonging the suspension, as
the same letter was also the subject matter of consideration by the
Division Bench in its decision (W.A (MD) No.100 of 2017 dated
13.02.2017, in the case of M.Murugan Vs. The Deputy Inspector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
58
W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and
W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020
General of Police) and recently by a learned Single Judge in a decision
dated 09.09.2021, in W.P.No.19037 of 2021, in the case of D.Lakshmi
Narayanan Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government. Both the
decisions have been cited supra. In the circumstances cliched citing of
pendency of criminal case, without adverting to the surrounding facts and
circumstances as to the stage of the criminal case or the departmental
proceedings as the case may be, the conduct and the attitude of the
employee towards early completion of the proceedings etc., cannot justify
keeping the employee under suspension for years together, to enable the
employee to luxuriate in idleness with monthly remittances to take care of
his modest sustenance.