Anthony Harry... v. The Registrar of City Civil Court Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.4.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPALWRIT APPEAL NO.957 OF 2007Anthony Harry... Appellant/ PetitionerVs.1. The Registrar of City Civil Court Chennai.2. The Estate Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police and PRO to the Commissioner of Police), Greater Chennai City Police Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.... Respondents/ RespondentsWrit Appeal filed u/c 15 of Letter patent against the orderdated 12.10.2006 in W.P.No. 1161 of 2001 presented under Article226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed inC.M.A.No.87/2000 dated 7.9.2000 and quash the same and consequentlydirect the 2nd respondent to restore the possession of the premisessituate at 1/1 H.5 Cross Road, Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81 in favour of the petitioner.For Appellant : Mr. P. SanthaseelanFor Respondents : Mr. S. Gopinathan, Additional Government PleaderJ U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Elipe Dharma Rao, J.)The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learnedsingle Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by theorder of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has beenfiled by the appellant/writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is anInspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Service and he was occupyingthe quarters at 1/1, H-5, Cross Road Quarters, New Washermanpet,Chennai-81. On 14.12.2000, in front of his house, the petitionerfired Air Gun shots at a boy aged about 16 years and causedinjuries to him, regarding which a case was filed against thepeitioner in C.C.No.2997/2000 and he was also suspended fromservice. On 8.1.2000, the Commissioner of Police directed theDeputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict the petitionerfrom the Official Quarters. Since the petitioner did not vacate,Form-A Notice under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises(Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act was issued by the EstateOfficer and the same was served on him and he did not appear forenquiry and no explanation was sent by the petitioner. The EstateOfficer passed the Eviction Order on 22.2.2000, directing thepetitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possessionbefore 29.2.2000. Since the petitioner did not vacate thequarters, eviction proceedings were taken on 3.3.2000. Thepetitioner and his family members were not present and the secondrespondent broke open the lock of the premises and after takinginventory of the articles, sealed the quarters in the presence ofwitnesses. Challenging the eviction order, the petitioner haspreferred C.M.A.No.87/2000 before the Principal Judge, City CivilCourt, Chennai. In consideration of the materials and submissions,the learned Judge had dismissed the appeal observing that sincedespite opportunities, the petitioner did not vacate the premises,the Estate Officer had broken open the lock and sealed the maindoor, after taking inventory of the articles found inside thepremises. Challenging the order passed in CMA, the petitioner haspreferred the writ petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an orderof stay of suspension order has been passed by the Tribunal.Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, attaches finality to the orders passedby the Estate Officer or Appellate Authority. The learned singleJudge on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,holding that as the order of the Principal Judge is final, there isno scope for invoking the writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writpetition.4. It is the settled position of law that mere suspension ofan employee on the ground of initiation of disciplinary proceedingsor some irregularities, when he was in service, the relationship ofMaster and Servant has not put an end, unless and until he hasremoved or dismissed from service after conducting a properenquiry. It was held in the case of CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY VS.BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., AND ANOTHER reported in 1999-3 SUPREMECOURT CASES 679 as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " 27. The order of suspension does not put an endto an employee's service and he continues to be amember of the service though he is not permitted towork and is paid only subsistence allowance whichis less than his salary. "This observation was made by the Honourable Supreme Court afterfollowing the judgment in THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 1466, wherein itwas held that the order of suspension of a civil servant has to beconsidered under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. The relevantportion reads as follows:-"35. ...The order of suspension does not put an end to hisservice. Suspension merely suspends the claim tosalary. During suspension, there is suspensionallowance. See Kheem Chand v. Union of India(1963-Supp 1 SCR 229 = AIR 1963 SC 687) hwere thisCourt said that the real effect of the order ofsuspension is that though he continues to be amember of the service he is not permitted to workand is paid only subsistence allowance which isless than his salry. Under Fundamental Rule 52,the pay and allowance of a Government servant whois dismissed or removed from service, cease fromthe date of his dismissal or removal. Therefore,there would be no question of salary accruing oraccruing due so long as orders of suspension anddismissal stand. The High Court was correct in theconclusion that the plaintiff's claim for salaryaccrued due only on the order of dismissal dated23 February, 1956 being set aside."The Supreme Court in KHEEM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR1963 SUPREME COURT 657, has held as follows:-" 20. We have therefore come to the conclusion thatthe High Court is right in holding that Rule 12(4) isvalid and consequently, in rejecting the appellant'srevisional application."5. Therefore, the petitioner when he was working as Inspectorof Police, Tamil Nadu Police Service, by virtue of his seniority,he was allotted the above residential quarters of the Government.As held by the Supreme Court, by virtue of an order of suspension,unless and until the relationship of Master and Servant is not putan end, the respondents have no power to evict the petitioner fromthe quarters. Even on the other hand, as per the rules, he is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled to a grace period of 90 days, even after the attainingthe age of sueprannution. Moreover, without observing the rules,the respondent with hasty passed an order on 8.1.2000 directingthe Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict thepetitioner from the official quarters. Therefore, the evictionproceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as theCommissioner of Police as ordered on 8.1.2000 is illegal againstthe rulings of the Supreme Court cited above. 6. It is brought to our notice by way of filing the additionaltyped set of papers that in pursuance of the orders passed inO.A.No.1082/2000 dated 23.3.2000 and on 6.4.2000 in C.A.No.134 of2001, the suspension order was revoked and the stay was granted bythe Tribunal. When the State did not comply with the order, thepetitioner filed the contempt application. 7. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the findings of thelearned single Judge. When the Government Servant was placed undersuspension, the relationship of Master and Servant is not put anend. Therefore, he is not entitled to receive the salary duringthe suspension period and he is entitled for other benefits likeenjoying the quarters till his dismissal or removal from serviceon which date the relationship of employer and employee have cometo an end. 8. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, we hold thatthe employer has no power to evict the employee who was placedunder suspension during the pendency of the suspension periodunless and untill he is removed or dismissed from service.Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated8.1.2000 directing the Deputy Commissioner to initiate theeviction proceedings is set aside and the order of the learnedsingle Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly they areset aside. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.kb https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Registrar of City Civil Court Chennai.2. The Estate Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police and PRO to the Commissioner of Police), Greater Chennai City Police Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 22944W.A.No.957 of 2007KSK (CO)kk 28/5