1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1479 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 The Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George,Chennai-600009.:Appellant/Respondent -Vs- S.Appavuraj :Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.08.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2010 WP(MD)No.10712 of 2010:Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in G.O.(3D)No.239, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 7.10.96 and G.O.(3D) No.48, Public Works (31) Department dated 29.7.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.7.2004 with all service with effect from 31.7.2004 with all monetary and attendant benefits with interest throughout the period of suspension. For Appellant :Mr.K.Mahendran,Special Government Pleader For Respondent :Mr.Veera Kathiravan, JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant, challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 27.08.2010, made in W.P.(MD).No.10712 of 2010, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, challenging the impugned order of suspension and consequently directing the appellant to allow the respondent to retire from service with effect from 31.07.2004. 2.By mutual consent of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission itself. 3.The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal, are hereunder: The respondent herein was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Works Department and he was placed under suspension as per the order, dated 07.10.1996, on the ground of his implication in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 409 and 420 IPC and also under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said suspension order was subsequently revoked and thereafter, the petitioner was retained in service and not allowed to retire by the order, dated 29.07.2004. The respondent herein has attained the age of superannuation as early as on 31.07.2004. But, he was not allowed to retire, as stated above. The criminal case for which he has been charge sheeted is pending as on date for trial and there is no progress. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent herein raised a plea in the writ petition to the effect that the suspension order was passed as early as in the year 1996 and the co- delinquents, who have been implicated in the very same case for the very same offences, have been given the benefit of quashing the suspension order by filing separate writ petitions and such suspension orders were set aside on the ground of inordinate delay of 14 years and no progress in the departmental proceedings. The writ Court, having taken note of such factor and also taken note of the case of co-delinquents, wherein this Court quashed the suspension order, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, on the ground of delay as well as no progress in the departmental proceedings right from the year 1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant. 4.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellant herein, as the respondent herein has been rightly suspended, in view of his implication in a criminal case. It is contended that the criminal case is pending even as on date and as such, there is no reason for revoking the suspension order and the same is not liable to be set aside It is further contended that the writ Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, on the ground of quashing of the suspension order in respect of co-delinquents, but, as far as the respondent herein is concerned, at the time of reaching the age of superannuation ie., on 31.07.2004, he was not allowed to retire and the suspension order was passed on 29.07.2004. Therefore, it is contended that the writ Court ought not to have placed reliance on such orders passed in favour of co-delinquents of the respondent herein. 5.Per contra, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that even in respect of the co- delinquents, the appellant preferred the writ appeals, challenging the order of quashing the suspension order on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 14 years and also on the ground of no progress in the departmental proceedings and the said writ appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 27.09.2010, in W.A.(MD).Nos.585 of 2010 and by the order dated 17.06.2011, in W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2011. It is contended that the writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition on the ground that there is absolutely no progress in the criminal case and rightly held that on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, the respondent cannot be kept under suspension more than 14 years. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record, including the order of the writ Court, dated 27.08.2010, in W.P.(MD).No.10712 of 2010, as well as the impugned order of suspension. 7.The fact remains that in respect of co-delinquents of the respondent herein, the writ Court has quashed the suspension order and as against the same, the writ appeals were also filed by the appellant herein and the said writ appeals were dismissed by the two Division Benches, by order dated 27.09.2010, made in W.A.(MD).No.585 of 2010 and by the order dated 17.06.2011, made in W.A.(MD).No.326 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench, while passing the order, dated 27.09.2010, in W.A(MD) No.585 of 2010, has observed as hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.6452 of 2008, dated 15.10.2009, by which the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, challenging the order of suspension passed in the year 1996, by setting side the same on the ground that no further action has been taken for the past fourteen years. 2.Admittedly, in respect of the other persons who were suspended along with the writ petitioner, their suspension were set aside and they were reinstated. Even in respect of the respondent herein, originally he was suspended in the year 1995 and on his approaching the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the order of stay was granted and he was reinstated. Again, he was suspended only on the ground that Vigilance and Anti- corruption case is pending against the respondent and for the past fourteen years, no steps have been taken either by filing any charge against the respondent or conducting any disciplinary proceedings, or in reviewing the order of suspension." 8.It is pointed out by the Division Bench that there is inordinate delay of more than 14 years, as delinquent officers have been kept under suspension right from the year 1996 and there is absolutely no progress in the departmental proceedings and no efforts have been taken either by filing any charge against the respondent or conducting any disciplinary proceedings or in reviewing the order of suspension periodically. Similar view was taken by the another Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 17.06.2011, in W.A.(MD).No.326 of 2011. 9.We are unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court and the writ Court has rightly quashed the order of suspension on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 14 years and also on the ground of no progress in the departmental proceedings. The appellant has not made out any ground, warranting interference of this Court in the order passed by the writ Court and accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the writ Court, dated 27.08.2010, in W.P (MD).No.10712 of 2010 is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Secretary to Government, Public Works (E1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. +1CC to Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, Advocate. SR.No.44960. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader.SR.No.45384. RP/09.01.2012/3P/4C.Judgment In Writ Appeal(MD)No.1479 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011,Dated:21.12.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/