IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.4.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL WRIT APPEAL NO.957 OF 2007 Anthony Harry ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 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/ Respondents Writ Appeal filed u/c 15 of Letter patent against the order dated 12.10.2006 in W.P.No. 1161 of 2001 presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed in C.M.A.No.87/2000 dated 7.9.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore the possession of the premises situate at 1/1 H.5 Cross Road, Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai- 81 in favour of the petitioner. For Appellant : Mr. P. Santhaseelan For Respondents : Mr. S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader J 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 learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Service and he was occupying the quarters at 1/1, H-5, Cross Road Quarters, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81. On 14.12.2000, in front of his house, the petitioner fired Air Gun shots at a boy aged about 16 years and caused injuries to him, regarding which a case was filed against the peitioner in C.C.No.2997/2000 and he was also suspended from service. On 8.1.2000, the Commissioner of Police directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict the petitioner from 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 Estate Officer and the same was served on him and he did not appear for enquiry and no explanation was sent by the petitioner. The Estate Officer passed the Eviction Order on 22.2.2000, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession before 29.2.2000. Since the petitioner did not vacate the quarters, eviction proceedings were taken on 3.3.2000. The petitioner and his family members were not present and the second respondent broke open the lock of the premises and after taking inventory of the articles, sealed the quarters in the presence of witnesses. Challenging the eviction order, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.87/2000 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In consideration of the materials and submissions, the learned Judge had dismissed the appeal observing that since despite opportunities, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the Estate Officer had broken open the lock and sealed the main door, after taking inventory of the articles found inside the premises. Challenging the order passed in CMA, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order of stay of suspension order has been passed by the Tribunal. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, attaches finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officer or Appellate Authority. The learned single Judge on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, holding that as the order of the Principal Judge is final, there is no scope for invoking the writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. 4. It is the settled position of law that mere suspension of an employee on the ground of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or some irregularities, when he was in service, the relationship of Master and Servant has not put an end, unless and until he has removed or dismissed from service after conducting a proper enquiry. It was held in the case of CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., AND ANOTHER reported in 1999-3 SUPREME COURT CASES 679 as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " 27. The order of suspension does not put an end to an employee's service and he continues to be a member of the service though he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salary. " This observation was made by the Honourable Supreme Court after following the judgment in THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 1466, wherein it was held that the order of suspension of a civil servant has to be considered under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. The relevant portion reads as follows:- "35. ... The order of suspension does not put an end to his service. Suspension merely suspends the claim to salary. During suspension, there is suspension allowance. See Kheem Chand v. Union of India (1963-Supp 1 SCR 229 = AIR 1963 SC 687) hwere this Court said that the real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continues to be a member of the service he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salry. Under Fundamental Rule 52, the pay and allowance of a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, cease from the date of his dismissal or removal. Therefore, there would be no question of salary accruing or accruing due so long as orders of suspension and dismissal stand. The High Court was correct in the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim for salary accrued due only on the order of dismissal dated 23 February, 1956 being set aside." The Supreme Court in KHEEM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 657, has held as follows:- " 20. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the High Court is right in holding that Rule 12(4) is valid and consequently, in rejecting the appellant's revisional application." 5. Therefore, the petitioner when he was working as Inspector of 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 put an end, the respondents have no power to evict the petitioner from the 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 attaining the age of sueprannution. Moreover, without observing the rules, the respondent with hasty passed an order on 8.1.2000 directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet to evict the petitioner from the official quarters. Therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as the Commissioner of Police as ordered on 8.1.2000 is illegal against the rulings of the Supreme Court cited above. 6. It is brought to our notice by way of filing the additional typed set of papers that in pursuance of the orders passed in O.A.No.1082/2000 dated 23.3.2000 and on 6.4.2000 in C.A.No.134 of 2001, the suspension order was revoked and the stay was granted by the Tribunal. When the State did not comply with the order, the petitioner filed the contempt application. 7. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. When the Government Servant was placed under suspension, the relationship of Master and Servant is not put an end. Therefore, he is not entitled to receive the salary during the suspension period and he is entitled for other benefits like enjoying the quarters till his dismissal or removal from service on which date the relationship of employer and employee have come to an end. 8. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, we hold that the employer has no power to evict the employee who was placed under suspension during the pendency of the suspension period unless and untill he is removed or dismissed from service. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 8.1.2000 directing the Deputy Commissioner to initiate the eviction proceedings is set aside and the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. kb https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 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. 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 22944 W.A.No.957 of 2007 KSK (CO) kk 28/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/