Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1384 - HC - Indian LawsProlonged suspension for more than six years - case of Revenue is that the writ court, after granting a direction to the criminal court to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner, should not have directed revocation of suspension, as the result of the criminal proceedings itself would give a solution to the issue as to whether the suspension of the petitioner is to be revoked or not - HELD THAT:- Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore vs. S.Govindaraj, [2011 (11) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] while considering Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, has categorically held that after a period of six months from the date of suspension, if an incumbent has to be paid 75% of his salary by way of subsistence allowance, such a person could be posted in a nonsensitive post, may be in a far off place. In the case on hand, the appellants have not followed the regulations laid down under Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee's Discipline and Appeal Regulations 9 clause (dd) and (e) - A thorough reading of the said regulations would clearly show that the rule empowers the appellants herein, at any time, to revoke the suspension order. But, the appellants, have failed to consider the request for reviewing the order of prolonged suspension in spite of his representations. Thus, the learned single Judge has held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just because there is a criminal case pending against him and has categorically came to a conclusion that the subsistence allowance should not be paid to him without extracting any work from him - there are no error or defect in the order of the learned single Judge's observation that the appellants can consider posting the respondent herein/writ petitioner in a non-sensitive post and extract work from the petitioner rather than paying the subsistence allowance for no work. Appeal dismissed.
|