1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).No.907 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 M.Subramani : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. : Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.13576 of 2009 on the file of this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent vide ROC.No.2734/2008/A4 dated 2.4.2008 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and attendant benefits. For Appellant : Mr.Rajan For Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.13576 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition holding that inasmuch as the respondents have the power of suspension, the order impugned cannot be set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that inasmuch as the appellant was under custody for about five hours, the order of suspension will have to be set aside for non - application of mind, as it has been passed on the ground that he was under custody for more than 48 hours, and therefore, there is no deemed suspension, as stated in the order impugned. The learned counsel would also submit that in the order impugned, a wrong provision of Rule has been quoted by the second respondent. 3. We are not able to appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the respondents have the power of suspension and it is not the case of the appellant that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend him. The order of suspension has been passed in public interest and pursuant to the trap set up, criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 proceedings have been initiated against the appellant. It is well settled law that merely because a wrong provision has been quoted, that would not make an order invalid. 4. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, it is seen that pending the Writ Petition, the appellant was permitted to continue in the post of Village Administrative Officer, in view of the interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge. The order of interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge was also implemented by cancelling the order of suspension. It is also to be seen that the order impugned has been passed on 02.04.2008. 5. Taking note of the above said facts, two weeks time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is granted to the appellant to make a representation to the second respondent seeking cancellation of the order of suspension. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation to be made by the appellant. Till such orders are passed by the second respondent, status-quo as-on-today shall be maintained. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. +1. CC to Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore, Advocate, SR.No. 31988 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 32235 NB JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.907 of 2011 19.09.2011 TR : 23.09.2011: 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/