1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.476 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Manoharan : Appellant Vs. 1.State represented by The Principal Chief Conservator Panakal Bungalow, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. 2.State Represented by The Conservator of Forests, NGO Colony, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.04.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.122 of 2011 on the file of this Court. WP(MD)No.122 of 2011 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceeding S.O.No.18 of 2010 dated 2/2/2010 and consequently, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in E2/888/2010 dated 3/10/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstatement of the petitioner in the Government service with all attendant benefits. For Appellant : Mr.K.Prabhu 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 09.04.2011 passed in W.P.(MD).No.122 of 2011, which was filed challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 order of suspension dated 02.02.2010 and also the order dated 03.10.2010, rejecting the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the registration of a case in Crime No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, he was placed under suspension. He has submitted a representation before the second respondent on 12.08.2010 seeking revocation of suspension order. By order dated 03.10.2010, the said request was rejected on the ground that the criminal case registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, is under investigation and charge sheet is yet to be filed. Challenging the above two orders, the said Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 09.04.2011, had dismissed the said Writ Petition. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 3. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per sub – clause (vi) of paragraph No.4 of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.01.1996, which reads as follows:- "For further, extension of suspension of a Government Servant, if necessary beyond 6/12 months i.e., after the first extension referred to under item (iv) above, Government alone can issue orders extending the period of suspension further. The Heads of Departments should submit their reports to Government well in advance, before the expiry of the current period of suspension in case the second extension becomes absolutely necessary in public interest." if the departmental proceedings or proceedings before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption were not finalized within a period of six months, the concerned Department Officer or the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption should submit a report to the Higher Authority and the Government has to examine the reasons for such a delay and also for continuing the suspension. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the case on hand, no such report is submitted before the Higher Authority, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dipak Mali reported in 2010 (5) MLJ 1132 (SC) at paragraph Nos.2 and 10, which read as follows:- "2. The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 2-6- 2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted, the respondent’s suspension was not reviewed as required by the amended Rules. The respondent, therefore, claimed that the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed and accordingly, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 540 of 2004 for a declaration that the suspension order dated 10-8-2002, became invalid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 on the expiry of 90 days from the date on which sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into force, since the same had not been extended by the Review Committee. 10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the petitioners’ case came up for review on 20-10- 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days." 5. We have considered the above submissions. 6. Sub – clause (vi) of paragraph No.4 of the Government Order, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, will not come to the rescue of the appellant, since in sub – clause (ix) of paragraph No.4 of the Government Order, it is stated as follows:- "(ix) the time limits ordered in the above paragraphs will not be applicable to the cases of Government Servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated." 7. On a perusal of the order dated 03.10.2010, rejecting the claim of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order, it is clear that as against the appellant, who is working as Forest Ranger, criminal proceedings have been initiated. 8. The Judgment, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, also will not have an application to the facts of the present case, since in the said Judgment, basing on the non – compliance of the Statutory Rules, orders have been passed. But, as far as the case in hand is concerned, no such Statutory Rule is available and no rule is also brought to the notice of this Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, the order dated 09.04.2011 passed in W.P. (MD).No.122 of 2011 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Principal Chief Conservator, State of Tamil Nadu, Panakal Bungalow, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. 2.The Conservator of Forests, State of Tamil Nadu, NGO Colony, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. NB akm/09.06.11 /4p-4c/ JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.476 of 2011 28.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/