Manoharan v. State represented by The Principal Chief Conservator Panakal Bungalow, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 & Ors.

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 28.04.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYW.A.(MD).No.476 of 2011and M.P.No.1 of 2011Manoharan : AppellantVs.1.State represented by The Principal Chief Conservator Panakal Bungalow, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.2.State Represented by The Conservator of Forests, NGO Colony, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the Order dated 09.04.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.122 of 2011 onthe file of this Court. WP(MD)No.122 of 2011 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to theimpugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedingS.O.No.18 of 2010 dated 2/2/2010 and consequently, the impugned orderpassed by the second respondent in his proceedings in E2/888/2010dated 3/10/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the secondrespondent to reinstatement of the petitioner in the Governmentservice with all attendant benefits.For Appellant: Mr.K.PrabhuFor Respondents: Mr.M.RajarajanGovernment AdvocateJUDGMENT[Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J]This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 09.04.2011passed in W.P.(MD).No.122 of 2011, which was filed challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2order of suspension dated 02.02.2010 and also the order dated03.10.2010, rejecting the request of the appellant seeking revocationof suspension order.2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the registrationof a case in Crime No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Vigilance andAnti Corruption, Nagercoil, he was placed under suspension. He hassubmitted a representation before the second respondent on 12.08.2010seeking revocation of suspension order. By order dated 03.10.2010,the said request was rejected on the ground that the criminal caseregistered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, is underinvestigation and charge sheet is yet to be filed. Challenging theabove two orders, the said Writ Petition was filed. The learnedSingle Judge of this Court, by order dated 09.04.2011, had dismissedthe said Writ Petition. As against the said order, the present WritAppeal is filed.3. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that asper sub – clause (vi) of paragraph No.4 of the Government Orderissued in G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N)Department, dated 30.01.1996, which reads as follows:-"For further, extension of suspension of a GovernmentServant, if necessary beyond 6/12 months i.e., after thefirst extension referred to under item (iv) above,Government alone can issue orders extending the period ofsuspension further. The Heads of Departments should submittheir reports to Government well in advance, before theexpiry of the current period of suspension in case thesecond extension becomes absolutely necessary in publicinterest."if the departmental proceedings or proceedings before the Vigilanceand Anti Corruption were not finalized within a period of six months,the concerned Department Officer or the Director of Vigilance andAnti Corruption should submit a report to the Higher Authority andthe Government has to examine the reasons for such a delay and alsofor continuing the suspension. According to the learned counsel forthe appellant, in the case on hand, no such report is submittedbefore the Higher Authority, and therefore, the impugned order isliable to be set aside. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for theappellant has relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. Dipak Mali reported in 2010 (5) MLJ 1132 (SC) atparagraph Nos.2 and 10, which read as follows:-"2. The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 2-6-2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted, therespondent’s suspension was not reviewed as required by theamended Rules. The respondent, therefore, claimed that thesuspension order must be deemed to have lapsed andaccordingly, he approached the Central AdministrativeTribunal by filing OA No. 540 of 2004 for a declarationthat the suspension order dated 10-8-2002, became invalid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3on the expiry of 90 days from the date on which sub-rules(6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into force, since the same hadnot been extended by the Review Committee.10. Having carefully considered the submissions madeon behalf of the parties and having also considered therelevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent andwhen the petitioners’ case came up for review on 20-10-2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed bythe Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by theHigh Court, that having regard to the amended provisions ofsub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review formodification or revocation of the order of suspension wasrequired to be done before the expiry of 90 days from thedate of order of suspension and as categorically providedunder sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemedwould not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it wasextended after review for a further period of 90 days."5. We have considered the above submissions.6. Sub – clause (vi) of paragraph No.4 of the Government Order,relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, will not come tothe rescue of the appellant, since in sub – clause (ix) of paragraphNo.4 of the Government Order, it is stated as follows:-"(ix) the time limits ordered in the aboveparagraphs will not be applicable to the cases ofGovernment Servants against whom criminal proceedingshave been initiated."7. On a perusal of the order dated 03.10.2010, rejecting theclaim of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order, it isclear that as against the appellant, who is working as Forest Ranger,criminal proceedings have been initiated. 8. The Judgment, relied on by the learned counsel for theappellant, also will not have an application to the facts of thepresent case, since in the said Judgment, basing on the non –compliance of the Statutory Rules, orders have been passed. But, asfar as the case in hand is concerned, no such Statutory Rule isavailable and no rule is also brought to the notice of this Court.9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in theWrit Appeal. Therefore, the order dated 09.04.2011 passed in W.P.(MD).No.122 of 2011 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is alsodismissed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar (Accounts)/True Copy/Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4To1.The Principal Chief Conservator, State of Tamil Nadu, Panakal Bungalow, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.2.The Conservator of Forests, State of Tamil Nadu, NGO Colony, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.NBakm/09.06.11/4p-4c/JUDGMENT MADE INW.A.(MD).No.476 of 201128.04.2011