1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9211 of 2011 Mr.R.Kalaivanan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai City, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2011 within a stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER Pleadings and materials on record disclose that by order dated 22.01.2011, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, the first respondent herein, has placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that (i) whereas, an enquiry into a grave charge is under contemplation against PC 1785 Kalaivanan of Armed Reserve, Madurai City, for his reprehensible and in disciplinary conduct in having made wordy quarrel with Thiru.M.Selvamani, Village Administrative Officer, in charge of Ariyapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai, disturbed him to do his official duty of issuing token to the public for obtaining free sarees/dhotis and also assaulted him in drunken mood and thereby, involved in a criminal case registered against him in Usilampatti Taluk Police Station in Crime No.13/2011, u/s.294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC on 12.01.2011 for which he was arrested on 12.01.2011 AN and remanded to judicial custody by JM No.1 Court, Usilampatti on the day itself; and (ii) whereas in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in the public interest to place the above said PC 1785 Kalaivanan of AR, Madurai City under suspension with immediate effect. 2. Contending inter alia that the petitioner is under suspension for more than six months and that charge sheet has also been filed, he has made a representation dated 25.06.2011 to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 herein, for revocation of order of suspension. As no orders have been passed, placing reliance on Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary/appointing authority is conferred with a discretion to revoke the suspension, which is made or deemed to have been made and, therefore, the representation dated 25.06.2011 ought to have been considered. 3. When the matter came up for admission, on instructions from the respondents, Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2011, confined in judicial custody and pending investigation in Crime No.13 of 2011, on the file of Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, in public interest, he was placed under suspension. He further submitted that there is no statutory or legal right for the petitioner to seek for revocation of order of suspension and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. While considering as to whether the time limit prescribed for review of suspension in G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 30.01.1996 is applicable to criminal cases, this Court in R.Ravichandran v. Addl. Commr. Of Police, Chennai reported in 2010 CIJ 553 IPJ, has held that there is no statutory or legal right for a Government servant to seek for revocation of order of suspension, when there is an investigation or trial and it is the prerogative of the appointing/disciplinary authority to retain the petitioner under suspension, till the completion of the investigation/trial. The said decision has been followed by Brother Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, in a subsequent batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.10882 of 2009, etc. The above referred to judgment has been taken on appeal and that the same has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.84 of 2011, dated 21.01.2011. 6. In view of the above stated position, this Court, while rejecting the contention of the petitioner that he has a legal right to seek for revocation of order of suspension under Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, however, is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2011 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the direction stated supra shall not be construed as an order for reinstatement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai City, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Advocate, Sr.No.28061 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 28117 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.9211 of 2011 Dated:- 17.08.2011 SML SMA/29.8.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/