1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 1/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.3919 of 2011 M. Chandrasekar ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 1/4/2010 of the petitioner in the light of the orders dated 5/2/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.251 of 2009 within a specified frame. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Visvalingam For respondents ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P. - - - - - O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 1/4/2010 in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.251 of 2009 dated 5/2/2010 within a time specified by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was recruited through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1969 and joined duty as Junior Assistant on 4/8/1969. Gradually, he was promoted and lastly, when he was serving as District Adi-Dravida Welfare Officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector, Theni, attained the age of super annuation on 30/6/2006. But, however, he was not allowed to retire on the said date and he was placed under suspension on 30/6/2006 by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai. The reason being that he has been made as a sixth accused in Special Case No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. He has filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.887 of 2007, but unfortunately, the same was dismissed. He has preferred Crl.R.C.(MD) No.251 of 2009 and by an order dated 27/2/2009, the same was allowed and the proceeding in Special Case No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul was quashed in respect of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner therefore, preferred a petition to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, who is the appointing authority for revocation of the order of suspension and sanction of the retirement benefits as early as 1/4/2010 which was not considered so far. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition for the relief stated therein. 6. The order of suspension was passed in view of the fact that a case has been filed against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Special Case No.5 of 2006. The petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.887 of 2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to discharge him. It is stated that the said application has been dismissed and the petitioner has preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.251 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 27/2/2009 has allowed the revision and the proceedings against the petitioner in Special Case No.5 of 2006 was quashed. 7. In such circumstances, the order of suspension which has been passed against the petitioner cannot stand. However, it is for the authorities to consider the same. But the authority cannot keep silent over the matter even though a representation has been sent by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner attained the age of super annuation on 30/6/2006, he is not in a position to get the retirement benefits till date. 8. In view of the above stated position, I direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1/4/2010 in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.251 of 2009 dated 5/2/2010. The said exercise has to be carried out by the first respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the first respondent finds that there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 other proceeding against the petitioner, it is needless to say that the entitlement benefits has to be settled to the petitioner after revoking the order of suspension. 9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 600 005. mvs rl/3c – 27.4.2011 W.P.(MD)No.3919 of 2011 1/4/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/