1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8800 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 P.Murugesan ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 3. The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai - 625 002 4. M.Rakkappan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D).No. 291 MAWS Department, dated 01.08.2011 and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment as Executive Engineer (Planning) in Madurai City Municipal Corporation in the existing vacancy, which he holds as additional charge from 11.08.2005 based on the proposal of the third respondent dated 29.01.2010 and the resolution of the counsel No.726 dated 30.06.2009. *** For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu for Mr.T.Ranganathan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent: Mr.M.Ravishankar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The impugned order of revocation of suspension issued in G.O.(D) No. 291, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC4) Department, dated 01.08.2011 reads as follows:- "Whereas an order placing Thiru M.Rakkappan, formerly Senior Town Planning Officer, Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation now Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation under suspension was made in the proceedings first read above, And whereas, the action of the Director of Municipal Administration having placed the abovesaid individual under suspension had been ratified in the G.O. read above, Now, therefore, the Government, hereby revokes the said order of suspension with immediate effect without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the abovesaid individual." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Service Rules 1996, the fourth respondent cannot be appointed in Madurai City Municipal Corporation, as he has been working earlier as Senior Town Planning Officer, Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation. 3. Inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph No.1 of the Government Order, Mr.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on 01.08.2011 or even prior to that, the fourth respondent was not working as Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation and that therefore, taking advantage of this order, the fourth respondent cannot assume office as Executive Engineer (Planning) in the post, which the petitioner held from 11.08.2005 to till date. It is his further contention that Madurai City Municipal Corporation has already sent proposals on 29.01.2010 to the first respondent to promote the petitioner and appoint him, as Executive Engineer in the existing vacancy. In the abovesaid circumstances, he stated that the impugned order of revocation of suspension is bad in law as it gives an impression that the fourth respondent was working as Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, as on 01.08.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. When the matter came up for admission in the forenoon, to clarify the position as to whether the fourth respondent was working as Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, as on 01.08.2011 Mr.M.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the Corporation was directed to get instructions and the matter stood adjourned this afternoon. On instructions from the Assistant Commissioner (Establishment), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, he submitted that till 01.08.2011, forenoon, Mr.Murugesan, the petitioner herein was holding the post of Executive Engineer (Planning) in-charge, Madurai City Municipal Corporation and as per the Government letter in G.O.Ms.No. 16450/Ma.Na.4/2011-1, dated 01.08.2011, appointing the fourth respondent in the vacant place, of as Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation , he has taken charge on 03.08.2011. The letter of the Government, dated 01.08.2011, shall be treated as part of the record. 5. In view of the factual position as clarified by the Assistant Commissioner (Administration in-charge), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.291, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC4) Department, dated 01.08.2011, which states that Mr.Rakkappan was working as Executive Engineer Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, as on 01.08.2011 is factually wrong. He has taken charge only on 03.08.2011 as per the certificate of transfer of charge, which is incorporated hereunder:- Name in BLOCK LETTER : Mr.RAKKAPPAN Designation : Executive Engineer (Planning) Corporation of Madurai Dated: 03.08.2011 F.N (i) Whether returning from leave : Revokes from suspension (ii) If so, place of orders of postings were received : C.M.A. Proceedings No.18172/2010/F4 dated: 2.8.2011 (iii) If transferred from what (a) Post : Executive Engineer (Planning) (Revokes from suspension as (b) Station : per G.O.Ms.No.291/MAWS dated: 01.08.2011) (c) Date of relief at Old station : If any holding charges in Addition to other duty : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 (a) Official designation : (b) Name of Officer posted if known : -------------------------------------------------- Memo of balances for which responsibility is accepted by the Officer receiving charge: Cash : NIL... Permanent Advance .. NIL (P.MURUGESAN) RELIEVED OFFICER 6. On the merits of this case, as to whether the fourth respondent can be appointed as Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation and as to whether there is any contravention of Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Service Rules 1996, and other contentions stated supra, cannot be gone into at this stage. Revocation of suspension is the prerogative right of the Government. 7. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the abovesaid observations. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 3. The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai - 625 002 +One Cc to Mr.M.Ravishankar, Advocate, SR.No.26440 vsg rl/5c – 5.8.2011 W.P.(MD).No.8800 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 04.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/