logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6030 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 30131 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
Parties : P. Indira Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department Secretariat, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R.D. Ashok Kumar for M/s. T.J. Lakshmipathy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, D. Yashwanth Rajan, Government Counsel (HR & CE).
Date of Judgment : 31-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the representations submitted by her dated 5.1.2026, 25.2.2026, 30.3.2026, 18.5.2026, 5.6.2026 and 30.6.2026 for revocation of suspension order by reviewing the facts of the case by the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.30, P and AR Department dated 23.2.2012 within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court and to sanction 75 percentage of the pay as Subsistence Allowance from 18.1.2026 by her representation dated 23.1.2026, 25.3.2026, 27.5.2026 and 30.6.2026 as the prolonged suspension beyond 6 months is purely on administrative reasons and not because of the petitioner.)

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

               “To direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the representations submitted by her dated 5.1.2026, 25.2.2026, 30.3.2026, 18.5.2026, 5.6.2026 and 30.6.2026 for revocation of suspension order by reviewing the facts of the case by the committee constituted by the Government in G.O. (Ms)No.30, P and AR Department dated 23.2.2012 within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court and to sanction 75 percentage of the pay as Subsistence Allowance from 18.1.2026 by her representation dated 23.1.2026, 25.3.2026, 27.5.2026 and 30.6.2026 as the prolonged suspension beyond 6 months is purely on administrative reasons and not because of the petitioner.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was placed under suspension pursuant to registration of criminal case by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing. According to her, the trap proceedings did not result in recovery of money and phenolphthalein test was negative. The petitioner would submit that despite repeated representations seeking revocation of suspension and despite earlier directions issued by this Court to consider the same, no orders have been passed. The petitioner would further submit that neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the criminal proceedings have made any progress. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the aforesaid relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

4. In the case on hand, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dated 22.07.2025, and continues to remain under suspension for a considerable period. Admittedly, neither a charge memo nor disciplinary proceedings have made any progress.

5. G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, has been issued with a view to prevent unnecessary prolonged suspension and mandates periodical review of suspension. However, the respondents have failed to review the order of suspension of the petitioner, periodically as required under the said Government Order.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India] has categorically held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within that period the charge sheet is not served. In the present case, despite lapse of considerable time, no charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner continues to remain under suspension, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. This Court, in similar circumstances, has consistently held that an employee cannot be kept under prolonged suspension and has directed the authorities to post such employees in a non-sensitive post, pending proceedings.

8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continued suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the petitioner shall be posted in some non-sensitive post. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal