The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent passed in Ref.No.Estt/999/B5/2015 dated 12.11.2015 suspending the petitioner from service, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 2 to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.
2.The petitioner has questioned the prolonged suspension dated 12.11.2015 on the ground that after placing him under suspension, the respondents had not come forward to review or reconsider the suspension order although charge memo was issued on 16.04.2016. The petitioner wanted to submit his detailed explanation after receiving the relevant documents relied upon in the charge memo, hence, he made a request to furnish the relied upon documents in the charge memo. Some of the documents were given and most important documents were refused, hence, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court also granted an order of status-quo not to proceed with enquiry till the request of the petitioner for furnishing crucial documents relied upon in the charge memo is complied with.
3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, has held that the prolonged suspension is not legally permissible beyond the period of three months if no charge memo is issued nor charge sheet is filed before the Criminal Court. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The District Collector, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District and another Vs. K.Devendran [W.A.(MD)No.613 of 2017, dated 15.06.2017] while referring to the Circular in Letter No.43634/N/2016-1, dated 20.12.2016 and also Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case [supra] has held that the said circular is non-est in the eye of law because of the fact that the said circular came to be issued and brought into effect only during December 2016, whereas the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case is much prior to that.
4.In the present case, when the petitioner was suspended from 12.11.2015, the charge memo was issued only on 16.04.2016 that itself shows beyond the period of three months, he was issued with the charge memo, hence, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(cited supra), this Court holds that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner is non est, therefore, the impugned order of suspension dated 12.11.2015 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To Commissioner of Sugar Mills, State of Tamil Nadu, 696, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai.
.