1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.1733 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Gomathi .. Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai. .. Respondent This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 31.1.2011 served on the petitioner on 1.2.2011 in Rc No.11061/2010/P1 (Dev) of the respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Kittu for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondent : Mr.TS.Md.Mohideen, AGP - - - - ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order of suspension, dated 31.01.2011. The suspension was made on the ground that a grave charge of misappropriation of Panchayat Union General Fund is pending against the petitioner who was the Block Development Officer (Small Savings), Panchayat Union, Thiruvarankulam. 2.The ground raised by the petitioner was that she had attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011, but the order of suspension was served on 1.2.2011. Therefore, it is not valid. 3.It is seen from the order that the District Collector had signed the order on 31.1.2011 and it was subsequently despatched. The fact that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011 will have no relevance since the order was signed on the same day. The mere delay will not defeat the suspension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, dated 6.6.2011, it was stated that a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2011. Though the suspension order was issued on 31.1.2011, but it was served on her through her officer. On 31.1.2011, there was a search made to serve it to her, but she was not available in the office. Therefore, it was served at her residence on 01.02.2011. The allegations made against the petitioner was that she was responsible for a loss of Rs.17,46,716/-. An audit objection was raised and it requires investigation. 5.In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. Though the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.144, P&AR Department, dated 8.6.2007 that no suspension can be made at the tail end of the service, in the very same G.O., the last paragraph says that it will not be made applicable to the case of vigilance enquiry and criminal case. 6.In respect of the other allegation that the order was not served on the same day, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Textile Corpn. (M.P.) Ltd. v. M.R. Jadhav reported in (2008) 7 SCC 29 wherein it was categorically stated that the actual communication of an order of suspension is not necessary and it is enough if the order goes out of control of the appointing authority. The following passages found in paragraphs 23 and 24 may be usefully extracted below: 23. In MCD v. Qimat Rai Gupta9 this Court opined: (SCC p. 319, para 27) “27. An order passed by a competent authority dismissing a government servant from services requires communication thereof as has been held in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika6 but an order placing a government servant on suspension does not require communication of that order. (See State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram.)” 24. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that communication of the acceptance of offer was necessary. An internal noting does not constitute a communication. Even in a case of order of suspension, only when the case goes out of the control of the appropriate authority, actual communication may not be necessary. 7.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The District Collector, Pudukkottai +One Cc to M/s.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate, SR.No.40006 +One cC to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.40372 vvk rl/4 c- 29.11.2011 W.P.(MD)NO.1733 of 2011 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/