1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) Nos.1101 and 4865 of 2011 S.Syed Azimuddin : Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs. The Commissioner Madurai Municipal Corporation Madurai-625 002 : Respondent in both W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.No.1101 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceeding KI.MA.Mi.3/13238/2008 dated 30.08.2008 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service and to pay all retirement benefits payable to him. Prayer in W.P.No.4865 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings ref. No.Vo2/2240/07 dated 06.05.2008 and quash the same as illegal. For petitioner in both Writ Petitions ... Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondent in both Writ petitions ... Mr.M.Jothibasu C O M M O N O R D E R The Writ Petition No.1101 of 2011 has been filed challenging the order keeping the petitioner in service in spite of the fact that he has attained the age of superannuation. The second Writ Petition No.4865 of 2011 has been filed challenging the order of suspension. 2. The order of suspension came to be passed against the petitioner, since a complaint against him for a criminal offence was under investigation. The said order of suspension was passed on 24.01.2007. Thereafter the second order dated 30.08.2009 was passed extending the service of the petitioner on the ground that he has been kept under suspension pending criminal case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in special case No.2 of 2007 acquitted the petitioner of all the charges made against him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that since the order of acquittal has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, on 18.11.2009 and that no appeal or revision has been preferred against the said order, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner pursuant to the investigation of the criminal case has to be revoked. He has also submitted that since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008 and his extension of service was ordered on 30.08.2008, he shall be allowed to retire from service. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the Vigilance and Anticorruption has been addressed as to whether any appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, acquitting the petitioner. He has further submitted that a communication has been sent to the higher authorities in this regard and as and when communication is received, orders will be passed suitably. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to the complaint pertaining to a criminal offence against the petitioner. The order of suspension was passed on 24.01.2007. Thereafter, since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008, further order retaining the petitioner in service was passed on 30.08.2008. The criminal case that has been filed against the petitioner ended in acquittal by an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, dated 18.11.2009, in Special Case No.2 of 2007. Though an order of acquittal was passed as early as on 18.11.2009, till date, it is not stated that any appeal or a revision has been preferred against the said order of acquittal. Even the case of the respondent is that a communication has been addressed to the Vigilance and Anticorruption Department seeking their response whether any appeal or revision has been filed against the order of acquittal. The counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to state that whether any communication has been sent by the said Department. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension endlessly. Had an appeal or revision been preferred against the order of acquittal, one can understand that the order of suspension or the other order retaining the petitioner cannot be revoked. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to direct the respondent to pass suitable orders revoking the order of suspension and also an order allowing the petitioner to retire from service. It is needless to say that the said order has to be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to all service benefits. With respect to the other charges, since that was not the reason for keeping the petitioner in service, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the said charges, if law permits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 These Writ Petitions stand ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner Madurai Municipal Corporation Madurai-625 002. +2 CCs to Mr.B.Saravanan, Advocate (SR.Nos.18104 & 18105) +1 CC to Mr.M.Jothibasu, Advocate (SR.No.18113) W.P.(MD) No.1101 and 4865 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 13.06.2011 RR NSV/23.6.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/