1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 R.Savariraj : Appellant Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maruthupandiyar Nagar, Sivagangai. 2.The Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai 7. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.10222 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP.(MD)No. 10222 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Memo No.11390/256/AAdo/Adm.111/A1,/FDPDOC//2009, Dated; 13.10.2009 and consequential Memo No. 12957/309/Aado/Adm.111/A1/F.Doc/2009 – 9, Dated; 12.07.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith all backwages, attendant and monetary benefits etc., and to that the period from the date of suspension till the actual date of reinstatements as on duty. For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J] Challenging the order of suspension dated 13.10.2009 passed by the first respondent herein, the appellant has filed W.P.(MD).No.10222 of 2010. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 11.07.2011, has dismissed the said Writ Petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order impugned is one without jurisdiction, as the Competent Authority to take action against the appellant is the second respondent and the not the first respondent and no opportunity whatsoever was given to the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 before passing the order of suspension. 3. Admittedly, the first respondent is the Appellate Authority, and therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is one without jurisdiction. It is the settled position of law that an order of suspension is not a punishment, and hence, there is no question of hearing the appellant before passing the same. 4. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the appellant had the benefit of interim stay and in view of the interim order, the appellant was permitted to continue in service, coupled with the fact that the order impugned has been passed on 13.10.2009, liberty is given to the appellant to approach the respondents seeking to review the order of suspension. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR NB To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Sivaganga Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maruthupandiyar Nagar, Sivagangai. 2.The Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai 7. DM::2011:OCTOBER:::10:: JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.785 of 2011 20.09.2011 2p:3c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/