IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.18284 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 D.Thenmozhi .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The District Collector and District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Project Officer, ICDS, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to order dated 24.07.2010, bearing se.mu.na.ka.no.1321/a1/2010 of the 1st respondent herein confirming the order of suspension dated 06.10.2009 bearing no.se.mu.na.ka.no.1321/a1/2009 by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. For Petitioner : M/s.Malini Balaji & C.A.Syed Ibrahim For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Govt. Advocate ***** O R D E R
The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.07.2010, passed by second respondent on the representation, made by the petitioner against the order of suspension dated 06.10.2009.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, challenged the order of suspension dated 06.10.2009. This Court did not agree with the petitioner and dismissed the writ. However, as representation of the petitioner to review order of suspension was pending with the department, it was ordered that the representation be disposed off.
3. Even though, petitioner had no legal right to file the second writ petition, seeking direction to dispose off the representation, in view of the order passed by this Court, on earlier occasion, the petitioner chose to file the second writ petition, seeking writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose off the representation, filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension.
4. There is no necessity to comment on the conduct of the petitioner, as this Court entertained the second writ and issued a direction for disposing off the representation.
5. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, impugned order dated 24.07.2010 has been passed, confirming order of suspension dated 06.10.2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of suspension, on the ground, that the petitioner has been wrongly charged in the case, whereas she had no independent role to play in collecting money, as it was at the instance of higher officer.
7. It is not for this Court to go into the merit of allegations, as it has to be determined in the proper proceedings. It is within the jurisdiction of competent authority, to suspend an employee, when misconduct is alleged and departmental proceedings / criminal case is pending against an employee. No ground is, therefore, made out to interfere with the impugned order of suspension.
8. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out, that subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prays for direction to the respondents to release subsistence allowance to the petitioner.
10. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the petitioner cannot be treated to be a Government Employee, therefore, would not be covered under fundamental rules to claim subsistence allowance.
11. This contention is totally misconceived. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by the second respondent, who is a Government Servant, the petitioner is also a Government Servant. In any case, there is no necessity to go into this question for the present, as employee placed under suspension is entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules or in absence of provision for suspension to full salary during the period of suspension.
12. While dismissing the writ petition, a direction is issued to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance due to the petitioner, and further continue to pay the allowance during pendency of departmental proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ar
To
1. The District Collector and
District Revenue Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Project Officer, ICDS,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Child Development Project Officer,
Pappireddipatty,
Dharmapuri District