Revocation Of Suspension Cannot Be Sought During Pendency Of Case Especially When Chargesheet Has Been Filed: Madras HC

Finding that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner which has resulted in filling chargesheet of against him, the Madras High Court refused to direct the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner as far as revocation of his suspension is concerned.

The High Court held so while emphasizing that the petitioner along with his brother was arrayed as accused for offences punishable under section 120(b) and 420 of IPC read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed that “even as against the petitioner in this case already a criminal case is pending and the same has culminated in filing a charge-sheet as against the petitioner as a result of which, it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to revoke the currency of suspension immediately and hence, the other limb of the argument made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking revocation of the suspension of the petitioner is not sustainable.”

Advocate A. B. Jeeva represented the Petitioner whereas Advocate N. Ramesh Arumugam represented the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner had worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher before the Panchayat Union Primary School. Though he has received several awards including the National Best Teacher Award, he was arrested by the CBI authorities, in connection with his brother's criminal case for the offences under Sections 120(b) and 420 of I.P.C r/w Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the District Elementary Educational Officer suspended the petitioner from his services. Afterwards, the petitioner was released on bail and made a representation seeking to revoke his suspension and to direct the Block Development Officer, to pay subsistence allowance. But the said representation was not considered. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench considered the submission of the counsel whereby he had referred to a decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) and others Vs. A. Srinivasan [W.A(MD)No.599 of 2020], wherein the suspension of a government employee was directed to be Revoked.

The Bench also considered the decision in case of The Superintending Engineer and another Vs. Mohan Kumar [W.A(MD)No.1827 of 2021], wherein the order of suspension was not interfered with because the chargesheet was later filled, though after three months since the date of initial suspension of the delinquent therein.

The Bench also noted that the subsistence allowance has already been paid in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the request of the petitioner to keep the petitioner at least in a non-sensitive post could not be heeded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: K. Ramachandran v.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023/ MHC/ 3943]

Click here to read/download the Order