Writ Petition No. 10110 of 2004 · Madras High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 20.07.2005Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAMWrit Petition No.10110 of 2004andW.P.M.P. No.11792 of 20041. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, Villupuram District.

The Tahsildar, Tirukoilur, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.... Petitionersvs.1. G.Karpagam2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104.... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records, pertainingto the order dated 27.1.2004 in O.A. No.88 of 2004 on the file ofthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 (2nd Respondentherein) in so far as it relates to a direction to the authorities toreinstate respondent No.1 and quash the same. For Petitioners: Mr.Suresh Viswanath, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent-1: Mr.V.Raghavachari. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself istaken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, dated 27.01.2004, made in O.A. No.88 of 2004, the RevenueDivisional Officer, Tirukoilur, Villupuram, and the Tahsildar havefiled the above writ petition before this Court.

The first respondent herein filed O.A. No.88 of 2004 beforethe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to set aside thesuspension order dated 21.11.2003. The Tribunal, by the impugnedorder, after finding that the suspension is a prolonged one anddirecting the respondents therein to transfer her to the Collectorate, allowed her application. In the same order, the Tribunal has directed the respondents therein to reinstate theapplicant and the Department was permitted to get along with theenquiry. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition has beenfiled.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitionershas brought to our notice that the finding of the Tribunal that thesuspension was a prolonged one is not factually correct. Accordingto him, since the charge relates to misappropriation, they are fullyjustified in suspending her till completion of the enquiry. Inaddition to the details relating to the charge of misappropriation, the deponent to the affidavit, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, has stated that a criminal case has been filed againstthe 1st respondent herein in C.C. No.12 of 2004, dated 8.1.2004,under Section 409 IPC. and the same is pending. According to thelearned Government Advocate, this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. It is also stated that departmental proceeding has beeninitiated against the first respondent under 17(b) of TNC Rule. 5. On going through the charges levelled against the firstrespondent and other particulars as well as the impugned order ofthe Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not justifiedin interfering with the order of suspension. Ends of justice wouldbe met by directing the first petitioner to complete the enquirywithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy ofthis order. The first respondent herein is directed to co-operatefor early disposal of the enquiry as directed above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the WritPetition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. ConnectedW.P.M.P. is closed. 20.07.2005.JI.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, Villupuram Dt.2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.1043. The Tahsildar, Tirukoilur Taluk, Tirukoilur, Villupuram District.1 cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, SR.297871 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, SR.30007.rrn (co)dvWP. No.10110 of 2004& connected WPMP.