Suspension quashed HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP No. 25503 of 2026 and WMP No.27806 & 27807 of 2026 M.Ramachandiran S/o.Madhu, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
WP No. 25503 of 2026 and
WMP No.27806 & 27807 of 2026
M.Ramachandiran
S/o.Madhu, ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort st. George,Chennai-9
2. The Additional Chief Secretary /
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-5
3. The District collector, District Collectorate, Krishnagiri.
4. The Revenue Divisional officer Krishnagiri.
5. The Tahsildar Krishnagiri.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Krishnagiri.
7. The Inspector of police
Vigilance and Anti corruption,
Krishnagiri ..Respondent(s) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 08.11.2025 in R.O.C. No.8457/ 2025/ 2025/A issued by the respondent No.3 herein quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by posting him in a nonsensitive post, with all attendant service and monetary benefits, after duly considering the petitioners representation dated 13.05.2026 and in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated
04.08.2022.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Hasan Mohemed Jinnah, S.C., for Mr. S.Udayakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr. A.R.Balaji,
Gov. Adv., for R1 to R6
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed filed for the following relief:
“to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 08.11.2025 in R.O.C. No.8457/ 2025/ 2025/A issued by the respondent No.3 herein quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by posting him in a non-sensitive post, with all attendant service and monetary benefits, after duly considering the petitioners representation dated 13.05.2026 and in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated
04.08.2022.”
2. The petitioner was serving as a Village Administrative Officer, Gurubarapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. He was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 08.11.2025 following the registration of a vigilance case alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in connection with the issuance of a patta. He has been granted bail by this Court and the investigation has already been completed. Despite the completion of the investigation, the respondents have neither reviewed nor revoked his suspension, which has continued for nearly seven months, contrary to
G.O.No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department, dated
04.08.2022. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.05.2026 seeking revocation of the suspension and posting in a nonsensitive post, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
4. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dated
08.11.2025, and continued to remain under suspension for a considerable period. Admittedly, neither a charge memo nor disciplinary proceedings has been issued to the petitioner till date and therefore, the question of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, etc is no longer possible. Therefore, the only basis on which the petitioner is sought to be kept under suspension becomes non-existent. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.Union of
India and Another] the Hon-ble Supreme had observed as follows:-
“ 11.Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.
12.Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of common law jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that ~ “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.“ In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”
5. In another judgment reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677 [State of Tamil Nadu vs Promod Kumar IPS and others], the Hon-ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:
“ 23.This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first Respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the Appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first Respondent in a non sensitive post.”
That apart, the Government, in its wisdom, taking note of the prolonged suspension of many employees, appears to have passed a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).81, Human Resources Management dated 04.08.2022 wherein directives had been issued and directive No.11 would be read as follows:
“ 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 withina 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 (ii) 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 conclusionsuo~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 (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 and 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 memorandam 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”
6. Subsequently, the Government taking note of the judgment in Ajay
Kumar’s case had passed G.O.Ms.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022 giving timelines for conducting the
investigation/charge/enquiry,etc., Applying the directives of the Government Order to the case on hand, and the above referred judgment, it is seen that investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. Therefore, the very basis for continuing the petitioner under suspension no longer exists. Consequently, the prolonged suspension cannot be sustained.
7. Therefore, in the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and suspension of the petitioner is revoked. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in a non-sensitive post as directed by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of (2015) 7 SCC 291 [Ajay Kumar Choudhary /vs/ Union of India and another]. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MRP
To
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort st. George,
Chennai-9
2. The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, chepauk, Chennai-5
3. The District collector District Collectorate, Krishnagiri.
4. The Revenue Divisional officer Krishnagiri.
5. The Tahsildar Krishnagiri.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Krishnagiri.
7. The Inspector of police
Vigilance and Anti corruption,
Krishnagiri
P.T.ASHA, J.
MRP
WP No. 25503 of 2026
03-07-2026