1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1097 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Surulimuthu ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayats), Madurai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District. ... Respondents /Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 15.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10489 of 2011. WP(MD)No.10489 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire reocrds with regard to Na.Ka.No.48024/2011/RD 6 dated 02.09.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to resotre me to to the same post within a time frame fixed by this Court. For Appellant : Mr.J.Parekh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellant has come forward with this writ appeal challenging the order of the Writ Court, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 15.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10489 of 2011. The appellant, who was working as a Panchayat Assistant, was placed under suspension by the District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Madurai District, by the order dated 02.09.2011. Challenging the said order of suspension, the appellant filed the writ petition. The writ court dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 15.09.2011. Hence this appeal. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant would put- forward two fold submissions, namely (i) The Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension; and (ii) before passing the impugned order of suspension, no opportunity was given to the appellant and as such the impugned order of suspension is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order passed by the writ Court, dated 15.09.2011. 4.It is pertinent to note that in respect of both the points, the writ court has gone into the matter elaborately by citing authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and ultimately held that the appellant has failed to substantiate his contention as to lack of jurisdiction as well as his contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that even before the issue of impugned order of suspension, the appellant was served with a show cause notice by the District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats and the only grievance of the appellant is that the said show cause notice was issued on the very same date on which the suspension order came to be passed. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner is well aware of the ground on which he was placed under suspension. It is needless to state that passing of suspension order is only temporary measure and even contemplation of any enquiry in respect of grave charges is sufficient to place an employee under suspension and as such the question of affording an opportunity to the appellant before passing the order of suspension not at all arises. Regarding this aspect, the writ Court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1964 SC 72, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it cannot be said that suspension of a government servant, without calling him to explain the charges first, was bad as the proceedings to suspend him were not of a quasi-judicial character and therefore ncessitated the Government's obtaining explanation to the charges of misconduct before passing the order of suspension. Therefore, we are unable to see any substance in the contention put-forward by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding not affording an opportunity to the appellant, namely the petitioner in the writ petition, before passing the impugned order of suspension. 5.As far as the other ground, namely lack of jurisdiction, is concerned, it is needless to state that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 admittedly the District Collector is the Inspector of Panchayats and as such he is vested with the power of taking action against erring officials. As far as the appellant is concerned, he was working as a Panchayat Assistant and as such he comes well within the jurisdiction of the District Collector, namely, Inspector of Panchayats, and this aspect was also elaborately dealt with by the writ court by assigning valid reasons. 6.In view of all these factors, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any ground warranting interference in the order of the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant to make representation to the competent authority with a prayer to revoke the order of suspension. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayats), Madurai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District gb rl/3c – 15.11.2011 Judgment IN W.A.(MD)No.1097/2011 and M.P(MD)No.1/2011 Dated:21.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/