J.Thangapandian v. The District Collector

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings in No.P1/2683/2023 dated 02.10.2023 and for consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Panchayat Secretary with all back wages.

¶2The petitioner, while working as Panchayat Secretary of Pillayarkulam Village, was placed under suspension by the impugned proceedings dated 02.10.2023 and the said suspension is being continued till date.

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are two criminal cases registered against the petitioner in connection with the discharge of his duties as Panchayat Secretary and disciplinary proceedings are also pending. He further submits that in terms of G.O. (Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated

04.08.2022, the respondents are under obligation to review the orders of suspension on expiry of three months. But in the instant case, no such review has been taken place and the petitioner is illegally being continued under suspension.

¶4On the other hand, Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned Government Pleader submits that a charge memo was already issued to the petitioner and an Enquiry Officer was appointed but for want of cooperation from the petitioner, the said disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded and therefore, she submits that the petitioner may be directed to co-operate for early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Insofar as the review of suspension is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that the second respondent would review the orders of suspension in terms of G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated

04.08.2022.

¶5In the light of paragraph No.11 of G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, this Court is of the considered view that it is obligatory on the part of the second respondent to review the orders of suspension.

¶6Paragraph 11 of the said Government order reads as 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."

¶7In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to review the orders of suspension dated

02.10.2023 duly taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Government in paragraph 11 of 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. Further, the petitioner is directed to co-operate for the early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings that are pending against him and the respondents are directed to conclude the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

16.07.2026 CM TO

¶1The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶2The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Srivilliputtur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶3The Secretary/Executive Officer, Pillayarkulam Village Panchayat, Srivilliputtur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM and WMP(MD)Nos.14994 and 14996 of 2026 Date : 16/07/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/07/2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP(MD)Nos.14994 and 14996 of 2026 J.Thangapandian ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Srivilliputtur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Secretary/Executive Officer, Pillayarkulam Village Panchayat, Srivilliputtur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in his Impugned Proceedings in No.P1/2683/2023 dated 02.10.2023 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of law and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Panchayat Secretary with all back wages. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondents : Mrs.K.Porkodi Government Pleader