(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the suspension order in Memo No.187/SE/MEDC/MDU/ADO/ADMI/A-3/F. Suspension/2022, dated 04.04.2022, based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026 and 06.04.2026 and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all attendant and monetary benefits.)

1. Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The petitioner herein, while working as Assistant Engineer at Uthappanaickanur, Madurai, was involved in an Anti-Corruption and Vigilance case vide Crime No.2 of 2022 on 01.04.2022 and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the said crime. In consequence of the arrest and remanding to judicial custody, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2022 and is being continued under suspension for the past more than four years. The said criminal case, that was registered against the petitioner, is still pending and trial is yet to be commenced. Under those circumstances, the petitioner claims to have submitted representations dated 02.02.2026 and 06.04.2026 to the respondents requesting for revocation of the suspension and complaining inaction on the part of the respondents in considering his representations, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, seeks time for filing counter-affidavit.

6. However, in view of the nature of the relief sought in this writ petition, this Court does not deem it necessary to call for counter-affidavit from the respondents.

7. Taking into consideration the prolonged disciplinary proceedings and prolonged suspension and also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Government has issued an Order vide G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, requiring all the competent authorities to review the orders of suspension on expiry of three months period. However, in the instant case, the respondents failed to undertake any such review, though it is mandated on their part under the said Government Order. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent is under a legal obligation to review the impugned order of suspension dated 04.04.2022 and to assess as to whether it is necessary to continue the petitioner under suspension or not duly taking into consideration the guidelines laid down in Paragraph No.11 of G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract Paragraph No. 11 of the said Government Order hereunder:

                   11.The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:

                   (i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint. Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concerned must be clear in mind that it is necessary. Prolonged suspension means that Government pays a Government Servant without extracting any work from him. In view of the above position, the suspension should not be resorted to unless the concerned authority has considered all the relevant factors and recorded his reasoned conclusion that it is in the public interest to place the Government Servant under suspension.

                   (ii) Where a Government Servant has been suspended on disciplinary proceedings contemplated, such proceedings should be initiated immediately and finalized normally within a period of six months.

                   (iii) In cases, where a Government Servant has been suspended and the matter has been referred for investigation to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for enquiry, the latter should complete the enquiry and send the report to Government through the Vigilance Commission within one year.

                   (iv) In respect of cases referred to under Items (ii) and (iii) above, the authority who ordered the suspension or the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, as the case may be, should before the expiry of the period of three months, report the matter to the Head of the Department / Government, indicating the progress of the disciplinary action / investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the reasons for non completion of the work and the further time required for completing the disciplinary action / investigation and furnish reasons for continuing the suspension, if continued suspension is fell essential. If the authority which initiated action in the first instance is the Head of the Department, the report has to be sent to Government.

                   (v) After initial report referred to in item (iv) above, reports should be sent to Government at the end of every three months, indicating the further progress, so as to enable the Government to review the suspension and the progress of the case, for such action as may be necessary to ensure expeditious disposal.

                   (vi) The Head of the Department or the Government as the case may be will examine the cases with reference to the subject matter of the disciplinary action / investigation in progress and the reported stage of progress and permit the continued suspension beyond three months / six months. Where the Government itself, have ordered suspension, it will examine the case on the same lines and pass similar order.

                   (vii) The disciplinary authorities should ensure that the delay in processing the case is not due to delaying tactics of the Government Servant. They should ensure that all notices issued to the suspended Government Servant should reach him without any loss of time.

                   (viii) When the disciplinary authority comes to a conclusion suo-motu or after conclusion of the investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the disciplinary authority shall, while initiating action by issue of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be, examine with reference to the facts established, which form the basis for the charges, whether public interest or the needs for further proceedings will require continued suspension of the Government Servant already under suspension.

                   (ix) The time limits mentioned above will not be applicable to cases of Government Servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. However, while sanctioning prosecution in such a criminal case, an examination similar to the one mentioned in item (viii) above shall be made by the competent authority.

                   (x) If, on examination of the case under items (vi), (viii) or (ix) above, continued suspension is considered not necessary, the suspension may be revoked in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 17(e)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be.

                   (xi) In cases where the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact that the disciplinary authority is not in a position to finalize the departmental disciplinary proceeding and if the criminal case is based on the vigilance report and is pending before the court of law for which no reasons are explained explicitly, the authority competent may take a decision by taking up review of suspension and post the Government Servant in a non-sensitive place in consultation with the appropriate investigating authority / Vigilance Commission on case to case basis in view of the reason that prolonged suspension and paying subsistence allowance for a long period without extracting work is not at all acceptable. Such revocation of suspension can be made based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the delay in serving the memorandum of charges / charge sheet. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in P.Kannan case, given in para 5 above, shall be taken into account.

                   (xii) Suspension will continue to be in force unless it is revoked as mentioned under item (x) above.”

9. In the light of the above Government Order and taking into consideration the prolonged suspension for more than four years, this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent should review the impugned order of suspension forthwith.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to review the impugned order of suspension dated 04.04.2022 by duly taking into consideration the representations dated 02.02.2026 and 06.04.2026 and also the guidelines laid down by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.