1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.467 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 K.Sudalaimuthu : Appellant Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Tuticorin District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.11550 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certioraified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings proc.No.31750/Admn. 5.1.2009 dated 28.08.2009 and R.C.No.31750/Admn. 5.1.2009 dated 21.12.2009. For Appellant : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.11550 of 2010. 2. The facts leading to this case are as follows:- Initially, the appellant had filed Writ Petition (MD).No.10173 of 2009 seeking to revoke the order of suspension dated 28.08.2009. By order dated 12.10.2009, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the appellant dated 29.09.2009 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 the order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (ii). Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent herein, by order dated 21.12.2009, had rejected the claim of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the appellant. (iii). Challenging the suspension order dated 29.09.2009 as well as the order dated 21.12.2009, rejecting the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order, the appellant had filed W.P. (MD).No.11550 of 2010. (iv). The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 08.09.2010, had dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that already review was done, and therefore, the second review is not possible. As against the said order dated 08.09.2010, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as far as the order dated 21.12.2009 is concerned, it is only an order with regard to the request made by the appellant in the representation seeking to revoke the order of suspension and it is not a review order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.01.1996, at Paragraph No.6, sub clauses iv, v and vi, which read as follows:- "(iv). In respect of cases referred to under items (ii) and (iii) above, the authority who ordered the suspension/Director of Vigilance and Anti – Corruption, report the matter to the Head of the Department/Government, indicating the progress of the disciplinary action/investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti – Corruption, the reasons for non completion of the work and the further time required for completing the disciplinary action/investigation and furnish reasons for continuing the suspension, if continued suspension is felt essential. If the authority which initiated action in the first instance is the Head of the Department, the report will be sent to Government. (v). After the initial report referred to in item (iv) above, reports should be sent to Government at the end of every six months, indicating the further progress, so as to enable the Government to review the progress of the case, for such action as may be necessary to ensure expeditious disposal. (vi). The Head of the Department or the Government, as the case may be, will examine the cases with reference to the subject matter of the disciplinary action/investigation in progress and the reported stage of progress and permit the continued suspension beyond six months/one year. Where the Government have themselves ordered suspension, they will examine the case on the same lines and accord similar permission." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. On a perusal of the said Government Order, it is seen that beyond a period of 6/12 months, if the suspension order has to be extended, the Government alone is the competent authority to issue such an order. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the original order of suspension was passed by the Head of the Department. Even the second order was passed by the Head of the Department and not by the Government. Apart from this, as far as the suspension order is concerned, the same was passed basing on the contemplation of enquiry into the grave charges. As far as the second order is concerned, the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order was rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal case. As per the impugned order, the appellant was placed under suspension basing on contemplation of enquiry into the grave charges and the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order was rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal case, i.e., on new grounds. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view, whether the earlier order of suspension has to be continued or not has to be examined by the competent authority. 5. In view of the above, the order dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.(MD).No.11550 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned with a direction to deal with the request of the appellant basing on the new reason given in the order under challenge in the Writ Petition, i.e, pendency of criminal case and pass orders on the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA ) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Tuticorin District. 3. The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.467 of 2011 25.04.2011 Nb SMA/09.06.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/