Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

The Assistant Director(Addl ... vs S.Arumugam

Madras High Court|20 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the impugned order by taking note of the fact that the suspension order was passed on 28.06.2010, continues even after seven years.
2.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that inasmuch as there is a power available to continue the suspension pending proceedings. The order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference.
3.A perusal of the impugned order, dated 28.06.2010 would show that the suspension order was passed on the ground that the respondent/writ petitioner was under the judicial custody for more than 48 hours. Now, despite all these years, the trial is yet to start. There is no explanation for the delay though the charges have been framed. Law is quite settled that pendency of the criminal proceedings can never be bar for initiation and conclusion of the Departmental Proceedings. Though the suspension order has been passed on the ground that the writ petitioner/respondent was under the judicial custody for more than 48 hours, much water has flown, which thereafter, unfortunately, the writ petitioner is receiving subsistence allowance as he is not working as on today. Therefore, even in the Public Interest, taking into consideration the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. The learned Single Judge has given a specific direction to the respondent/appellant reinstate the petitioner in service and post him in a non-sensitive post.
4.In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the Disciplinary Proceedings are going on at a snail's pace, we direct the appellant to conclude the Disciplinary Proceedings within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. .
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

The Assistant Director(Addl ... vs S.Arumugam

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
20 September, 2017