IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District …Petitioner
Vs

1. The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.

2. The Commissioner,
Villupuram Muncipality,
Villupuram. …Respondents

Affidavit of the petitioner

I, D. Arokiasamy, son of Diviyanathan, aged 45 years, residing at No.216,
Madhakoil Street, Panikkan Kuppam, Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District, now
come down to Chennai do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.
1. I am the petitioner herein I was working as Sanitary Inspector under the
2nd respondent municipality from 14.11.2008. I know the facts of the case.
2. One Thirumalai working as sanitary worker under me lodged a complaint
against me with vigilance and Anti Corruption, Villupuram that I demanded
Rs.2000/- from him as bribe for having recommended a G.P.F loan of Rs.15,000/-.
The case was foisted upon me due to ill will. I never demanded any money either
on the alleged date or on previous occasions. The inspector of police, Vigilance
and Anti Corruption, Villupuram registered a FIR under the prevention of
corruption Act in crime.No.12/2009 / AC/VPM dated 16.09.2009. I was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 16.09.2009. I was released on bail by this
Hon’ble Court on 1.10.2009.
3. I submit that I am falsely implicated in the case, on the basis of my arrest
by the police the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 17.09.09 in his Roc
5386/2009/c1 and placed me under suspension with immediate effect.
4. I filed W.P.No.20864 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the
order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.5386/2009/ C1 dated

Page |1
Corrns:
17.09.2009. This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 20.10.2010 while disposing the
writ petition granted liberty to me to file a review petition before the 1 st respondent
for review the order of suspension and the 1 st respondent is directed to consider the
same and pass orders on merits in accordance of law within a period of six weeks.
5. Pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court I filed review petition before
the 1st respondent on 10.11.2010. The 1st respondent erroneously rejected my
review petition by his order dated 31.12.2010 stating that vigilance anticorruption
department has completed the investigation, based on the findings requested the
director of Municipal Administration for permission to prosecute under the
provisions of corruption Act, 1988. The Director of Municipal Administration has
accorded permission to prosecute me under the prevention of corruption Act in his
proceeding Roc.No.45532/2009/op3, dated 23.10.2010. In view of the above
circumstances the review petition was rejected by the 1 st respondent dated
31.12.2010.
6. I submit that after investigation the Inspector of Police, Vigilance
AntiCorruption Department, Villupuram has filed charge sheet before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram on 24.01.2010. The said criminal case is pending
trial. I submit that the investigation in the above case is already over and the
charge sheet has been filed before the competent court in CC.No.2/2011 and there
is absolutely no chance for me either to tamper the prosecution witness or hamper
the process of investigation. There is absolutely no necessity to continue the
suspension against me. The respondents even after filing the charge sheet by the
police have not review the order of suspension for the past 5 years and above.
7. I submit that in view of the stated position again I filed review petition
before the 1st respondent for reviewing the order of suspension dated 17.09.2009 in
Roc.No.5386/2009/C1 on the file of the 2 nd respondent in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative reforms dated 30.01.96 and also
citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (2) SCC 222 and
to revoke the suspension. Till today no order has been passed by the 1 st
respondent.
8. I submit that I am prolonged suspension for more than 5 years and hence I
am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to quash the order of suspension in Roc.No.5386/2009/C1
dated 17.09.2009 on the file of the 2 nd respondent on the following among other
grounds.
GROUNDS
a. The impugned order of suspension by the 2nd respondent is contrary to
rules and is in violation of the principle of natural justice.
b. The order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent is not maintainable
either in law or on facts.
c. It is submitted that any government servant who is involved in the
criminal case is placed under suspension only in the public interest. The
Tamilnadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline & Appeal Regulation),
1973 specifically states that a person can be placed under suspension for having
involved in a criminal case only in public interest. The impugned order of
suspension dated 17.09.2009 has not been issued in Public interest and again the
impugned order of suspension is in violation of the service rules and this ground
also the impugned order to be setaside.
d. The petitioner is under prolonged suspension for more than 5 years. Now
the police filed a charge sheet before the criminal court on 24.12.2010. There is
absolutely no chance for the petitioner either to tamper the prosecution witness or
hamper the process of trial. Hence in the absence of any valid reason for
continuing the impugned order of suspension dated 17.09.2009 is illegal and liable
to be quashed.
e. The investigation in the criminal case is already over and the charge sheet
is filed before the competent court in C.C.No.2 of 2011. The petitioner is under
prolong suspension without any review. As stated above, the investigation is
already over and the 1st respondent has not review the order of suspension.
f. Awaiting the judgment from the criminal court and prolonging the agony
will certainly cause prejudice to the petitioner.
9. I have no other speedy efficacious remedy is available except to approach
this Hon’ble Court under the article 226 constitution of Indian.
10. I submit that the original impugned order of suspension in
Roc.No.5386/2009/C1 dated 17.09.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent is filed
along with the previous writ petition in W.P.No.20864 of 2010 before this Hon’ble
Court. Hence I am filing Xerox copy of the original impugned order for the
present. The original impugned order of suspension in Roc.No.5386/2009/ C1
dated 17.09.2009 may be dispense with otherwise I will put to irreparable loss and
hardship.
11. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense
with production of the original impugned order of suspension in Roc.No.5386 /
2009 / C1 dated 17.09.2009 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and thus render
justice.
12. I submit that unless stay operation of the order in Roc.No.5386 / 2009 /
C1 dated 17.09.2009 is granted I shall suffer loss and damages which cannot be
compensated for.
13. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant
stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the order of the 2 nd respondent in
Roc.No.5386 / 2009 / C1 dated 17.09.2009 pending disposal of the above main
writ petition and thus render justice.
For the reason stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of a writ calling for the records
of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.5386 / 2009 / C1 dated 17.09.2009 quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate me in service with all attended
benefits and pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai :

On this the 7th day of December : Before me,
2014 and signed his name in :
My presence : Advocate, Chennai
 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Art.226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District …Petitioner

Vs

1. The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.

2. The Commissioner,
Villupuram Muncipality,
Villupuram. …Respondents

WRIT PETITION

The Address for service on the petitioner is that of his counsel, M/s.
M.S.Palaniswamy, V.Ravichandran, S.P.Yuaraj & P.K.Shivakumar Advocates,
455, New Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai-104.
The address for service on the respondents is the same as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of a writ
calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.5386 / 2009 / C1 dated
17.09.2009 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner with all attended benefits and pass such further or other order as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case and thus
render justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 15th day of December, 2014.

Counsel for Petitioner

 Memorandum of Miscellaneous Petition
(Under Art.226 of the constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

M.P.No. of 2014
In
W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. …Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs

1. The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.

2. The Commissioner,
Villupuram Muncipality,
Villupuram. …Respondents / Respondents

PETITION FOR STAY

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in
pursuant to the order of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.5386 / 2009 / C1 dated
17.09.2009 pending disposal of the above main writ petition and thus render
justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 15th day of December, 2014.

Counsel for Petitioner / Petitioner

 Memorandum of Miscellaneous Petition
(Under Art.226 of the constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

M.P.No. of 2014
In
W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. …Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs

1. The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.

2. The Commissioner,
Villupuram Muncipality,
Villupuram. …Respondents / Respondents

PETITION FOR DISPENSEWITH

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with production of the original
impugned order of suspension in Roc.No.5386 / 2009 / C1 dated 17.09.2009 on
the file of the 2nd respondent and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 15th day of December, 2014.

Counsel for Petitioner / Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District …Petitioner
Vs

The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5 and another. …Respondents

Dates and Events

14.11.200 Petitioner working as Sanitary Inspector in the 2 nd respondent

8 municipality
16.09.200 Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
9
17.09.200 Suspended from service
9
05.09.201 W.P.No.20864 of 2010 filed challenging the order of suspension
0
20.10.201 Writ petition disposed with direction to file review petition before the
0 1st respondent.
10.11.201 Review petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent
1
31.12.201 Review petition rejected
0
24.12.201 Charge sheet filed
0
Suspension continued for the past 4 years and 6 months

Dated at Chennai this the 18th day of February, 2014.

Counsel for Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District …Petitioner
Vs

The Director of Municipal Administration,

Chepauk,
Chennai – 5 and another. …Respondents

INDEX

S.No. Date Description Page

1 31.01.1996 G.O.Ms.No.40 Administrative Department 1
2 16.09.2009 Copy of the FIR 7
3 17.09.2009 Suspension order (Impugned award) 13
4 20.10.2010 Order in W.P.No.20864 of 2010 15
5 24.12.2010 Charge sheet 19
6 31.12.2010 Review order passed by the 1st respondent 25

It is certified that the above copies are true copies.

Dated at Chennai this the 15th day of December, 2014

Counsel for Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2014
D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District. …Petitioner
Vs
The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5 and another. …Respondents

SYNOPSIS
The petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector in the 2 nd respondent
municipality from 14.11.2008. One Thirumalai working as sanitary worker lodged
a complaint against the petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti corruption,
Villupuram. Based on the complaint the petitioner was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 16.09.09. In view of the arrest the petitioner was suspended
from service on 17.09.09 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20864
of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the order of suspension by the 2 nd
respondent dated 17.09.09. This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 20.10.2010
while disposing the writ petition granted liberty to the petitioner to file a writ
petition before the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the order the petitioner filed review
petition before the 1st respondent on 10.11.2010. The review petition was
rejected by the 1st respondent on 31.12.2010.
The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anticorruption, Villupuram after
investigation has filed charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on
24.12.2010 in C.C.No.2/2011. In view of filing the charge sheet the continuance
of suspension against the petitioner is absolutely not necessary. The suspension
against the petitioner is continued for the past 4 years and 6 months without any
review. Hence I filed review petition before the 1st respondent on 13.02.2014. The
1st respondent has not disposed my review petition till date. Therefore the writ
petition filed challenging the order of suspension.
Dated at Chennai this the 18th day of February, 2014.
 Counsel for Petitioner
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
CHEPAK, CHENNAI -5

Review.Petition.No. of 2014

D.Arokiasamy,
S/o, Divyanathan,
No.216, Madhakoil Street,
Panikkan Kuppam,
Panrutti Taluk,
Cuddalore District …Petitioner

-Vs-

The Commissioner,
Villupuram Muncipality,
Villupuram. …Respondent

Review Petition filed in accordance with G.O.(Ms).No.40 Personal and

Administrative Reforms(N) Department dated 30.01.1996 and Rule 17(E) (6)
of Tamilnadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

1. I was working as Sanitary Inspector of the respondent municipality. I was

falsely implicated under the Prevention of Corruption Act and was arrested on
16.09.2009. On the basis of arrest the respondent passed an order dated 17.09.2009
in his Roc.No.5386/2009/C1& placed me under suspension with immediate effect.
No further enquiry is conducted by the respondent for the past more than 4 years
and 6 months. The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Villupuram
after the investigation has filed charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Villupuram on 24.12.2010 in C.C.No.2 of 2011. Hence there is absolutely no
necessity to continue the suspension against me.
2. The matter has not progressed any further from 17.09.2009. I am being
kept under prolong suspension without enquiry by the respondent for the past 4
years and 6 months.
3. The falsity of the compliant is evident from the inaction of the respondent.
The respondent need not have awaited the result of the criminal court. The
respondent prolongs my suspension quoting pendency of the criminal case against
me. Suspension on the basis of pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be
sustained under law.
 4. I submit that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2010 (2) SCC 222 and the mandatory dictum laid down in G.O.(Ms).No.40,
Personal and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 30.01.1996 clearly
shows pendency of suspension without enquiry for more than one year cannot be
sustained. The person suffering suspension shall be reinstated.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to review the
suspension order dated 17.09.2009 in Roc.No.5386/2009/C1 on file the respondent
in the light of G.O.(Ms).No.40, Personal and Administrative Reforms (N)
Department dated 30.01.1996 and Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2010 (2) SCC 222 and revoke the suspension and pass such further other order as
this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 13th day of February, 2014.

Petitioner