1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1544 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 G.Sulochana ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Collectorate, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, Pudur Panchayat Union, Pudur Post, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.11.2011, made in W.P. (MD)No.12631 of 2011. W.P.(MD)No.12631 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned suspension order issued by the first respondent in proceedings Va9/42171/11 dated 12.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant and monetary and other benefits. For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi, 1 and 2 Govt.Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is preferred by the Appellant challenging the order of the Writ Court, dated 08.11.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.12631 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order of suspension, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 12.08.2011. 2.Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate, has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is a Noon Meal Cook and she has been suspended on the ground of her arrest in a criminal case. It is contended that in the impugned order the authority has not mentioned the specific provision of law under the appellant was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the criminal case and a counter complaint has also been given by the appellant and, therefore, there is no question of suspending the appellant in respect of an individual dispute between her and another private person and the same would not amount to an act against moral turpitude, warranting the passing of suspension order and the writ court has failed to take note of these aspects and hence this writ appeal has been filed. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension, as the appellant has been arrested in respect of her involvement in a criminal case. It is further contended that writ court has taken note of all these factors and dismissed the writ petition and there is no infirmity or illegality warranting interference in the order of the writ court. 5.We have given our careful considerations on the submissions made by the counsel on either side perused the entire materials available on record, including the impugned order of suspension as well as the order of the Writ Court. 6.The fact remains that the appellant has been suspended on the ground of her implication in a criminal case and her arrest and she was in judicial custody for a period more than 48 hours. Further, it is to be noted that the appellant has been implicated in respect of a case in counter, as the appellant herself has given a counter complaint against the de-facto complainant in the criminal case registered against him. 7.Considering all these factors, it is suffice for us to give liberty to the appellant to prefer a representation to the competent authority seeking for the relief of reviewing of revocation of the suspension order. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has already preferred a representation, dated 28.09.2011, to the 1st respondent and the same is pending as on date for consideration. 8.In view of the same, without going into the merits of such a representation and without expressing any opinion on such representation, we are constrained to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 28.09.2011, by affording an opportunity to the appellant and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9.With the above direction, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Collectorate, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, Pudur Panchayat Union, Pudur Post, Tuticorin District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 44997 gb ssk/03.01.2012 /4c -3p/- Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1544 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:20.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/