1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.V.Arulsingh ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Divisional Manager, Mylar Division, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Chithar Colony Post, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.( MD)No.5803 of 2010. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, caling for the records pertainign to the impugned order of deemed suspension in Pro.No.697/09/E, dated 20.04.2009 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and ocnseuqently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.5803 of 2010 dated 26.07.2011, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order of suspension. 2.Admittedly, as against the charge memo issued against the appellant, he has approached this Court and obtained an order of stay. In such circumstances, the interim order of suspension has been passed against the appellant. The learned Single Judge in our view correctly has held that when there is jurisdiction on the part of the respondent, placing the appellant under suspension, there is no question of challenging the order of suspension. Simply because the charge is not relating to corruption or moral-turpitude, it does mean that the employer loses the right from placing the appellant under suspension. 3.In such view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, it is needless to say that if any such representation is made by the appellant for the purpose of revocation of suspension either on the ground of prolonged suspension or otherwise, it is always open to the respondent / Department to consider the same on merits https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the light of the Rule that there is a power on the part of the respondent to review the order suspension. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /true copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Divisional Manager, Mylar Division, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Chithar Colony Post, Kanyakumari District. +1 CC to M/s T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.31295 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.31458 nbj W.A.(MD)No.875 of 2011 and MP(MD)NO.1 of 2011 13.09.2011 TR : 29.09.2011 : 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/