(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Director of Treasuries and Accounts in Rc.No. 1204548/2025/Q2 dated 21.08.2025 suspending the petitioner from service, Quash the same as illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Treasury Officer at Sub Treasury, Melur, Madurai District with salary and all other consequential benefits including regularisation of service spend on suspension.

Contempt Petition filed to punish the respondents/ contemnors herein for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court dated 10.11.2025 in WP(MD) No.31632 of 2025 in Writ Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.24801 of 2025 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.)

Common Order:

1. WP(MD)No.31632 of 2025 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in connection with the proceedings RC.No.1204548/ 2025/Q2 dated 21.08.2025, whereby the petitioner was placed under and Cont.P(MD)No.1190 of 2026 suspension under Rule 17(e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, has granted an order of interim stay by order dated on 10.11.2025 and the same is in operation as on date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned suspension order has been issued malafidely and the petitioner on an earlier occasion filed WP(MD)No.14666 of 2025 challenging the order of transfer dated 22.05.2025, wherein the petitioner was transferred and in that place, the third respondent herein was accommodated on his request. As the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by an order dated 18.08.2025, the respondents have initiated the present proceedings and placed the petitioner under suspension by issuing the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 and on the very next day, i.e, on 23.05.2025, the third respondent herein was posted in the place of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that it is only with a view to accommodate the third respondent herein, the respondents 1 and 2 have transferred the petitioner and in some way or other they are trying to push the petitioner away from the Sub Treasury, Melur, where the petitioner was working.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and contended that even after a lapse of more than six months, the respondents have not issued any charge memo to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD)No.2427 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022 also, the respondents are on obligation to review the orders of suspension on completion of three months period of suspension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suspension order has not been reviewed by the respondents as per the Government Order.

5. Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader submits that there are serious allegations of demand of bribe by the petitioner for processing various bills pertaining to the Lecturers and therefore,the Association of Lecturers/Teachers has made a complaint and basing on the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 21.02.2022, where the petitioner also appeared and his statement was also recorded. Only with a view to conduct a detailed enquiry into the said allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension through impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2025. The learned Additional Advocate General further tried to substantiate the delay in issuing the charge memo contending that because of the interim order passed by this Court in the abovesaid writ petition, the respondent authorities have not taken any further steps to issue charge memo against the petitioner.

6. Adding further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondents are ready to review the order of suspension in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022.

7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials on record.

8. The subject matter of this writ petition is only an order of suspension, which was passed as early as on 21.08.2025. Admittedly, no charge memo has been issued as on date to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately considered the issue relating to prolonged suspension in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and held as under:

               ''20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond a period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar' (1986) 4 scc 481:1986 scc (Cri)511 and more so of the Constitution Bench in Anrulay – Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225: 1992 SCC (Cri.)93. we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.

               21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution.We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us''.

9. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu also formulated detailed guidelines dealing with the subject of suspension, prolonged suspension and also prescribed timelines for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in paragraph 11 in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, which is extracted herein under:

               “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 concemed 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 felt 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 the 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 or under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate 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 (vii) 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 and the disciplinary authority is not in a position to finalize the departmental disciplinary proceeding and if the criminal case is based on theon vigilance report and is pending before the court of law for which no reasons are explained explicitly, the authority compelent may take a decision by laking up review of suspension and post the Government Servant in a non-sensitive place in consultation with the appropriate investigating authority / Vigilance Commission 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 memorandam of charges / charge sheet. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras 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.”

10. Further, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in all cases of prolonged suspension, whenever a charge memo is not issued within a period of three months, the suspension order itself cannot be sustained thereafter. In the cases, where charge memo has been issued within a period of three months, it was held that the disciplinary authority is mandated to review the suspension order as to whether it requires continuous suspension or not and pass a reasoned order. In the instant case, in spite of specific guidelines formulated under G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, admittedly, the order of suspension dated 21.08.2025 has not been reviewed by the first respondent as on date. In the circumstances, especially, taking into consideration that no charge memo has been issued as on date to the petitioner admittedly, this Court is of the considered view that it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent to review the order of suspension dated 21.08.2025 in the light of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to review the impugned order of suspension dated 21.08.2025 duly taking into consideration the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022 and the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 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. Since the main writ petition itself is disposed of by this order, there is no need to continue the interim order of stay passed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 and therefore, WMP(MD)No.24801 of 2025 is closed. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this Court does not see any reason to proceed with contempt proceedings against the respondents and hence, Cont.P(MD) No.1190 of 2026 is also closed. No costs.