w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



A.N. Logesh v/s State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- E V P HOUSING CHENNAI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TN2005PTC055469

Company & Directors' Information:- N S T HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2001PTC093885

Company & Directors' Information:- S K HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201WB1990PTC048531

Company & Directors' Information:- CHENNAI HOUSING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2010PLC076462

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- U R HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036764

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

Company & Directors' Information:- R & S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2009PTC071067

Company & Directors' Information:- PRINCIPAL HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102WB2014PTC202020

    W.P. No. 14747 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 14741 of 2019

    Decided On, 28 May 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

    For the Petitioner: N. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: K.S. Suresh, Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 18.02.2019 in R.O.C.No.3037/2019/K1 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same thereby direct the 2nd Respondent to post the petitioner to any other post.)

1. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 18.02.2019. Challenging the said order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition.

2. Taking into consideration of the narrow compass of the prayer sought for, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Vigilance and Anti-corruption has not ceased any recovery from the person or belongings of the petitioner herein and the petitioner has implemented the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to regularisation and the deviation effected by some of the real estate in the locality, thereby, he has welcomed the warmth of the real estate, who along with some of the department people have foisted a false case.

4. Mr.K.S.Suresh, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents submitted that statutory period of suspension has already lapsed and the department is contemplating to convene Committee as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another reported in CDJ 2015 SC 129.

5. After hearing both the parties and also taking note of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another reported in CDJ 2015 SC 129 and also taking note of the fact that statutory period of 90 days is already over and further on the factual back ground as could be seen from the police records that no recovery as stated in the FIR has been made from the person or the property or belongings of the petitioner herein and the amount is said to have been recovered from the vehicle owner parked far away from the office and also the said vehicle does not belong to the petitioner and the police have taken the custody of the petitioner to the police station and a case seems to have been registered and with regard to demand of money nor his acceptance, there is no positive evidence and the petitioner was at all subjected to phenolphthalein test with regard to the alleged recovery and hence without going into the merits of the allegations made therein and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case, I am inclined to direct the respondents as under:

(a) The petitioner is directed to submit his written representation to the 2nd Respondent to review/revoke the order of suspension within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(b) On such representation made by the petitioner herein, the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

official respondents are hereby directed to review or to revoke the order of suspension relating to the petitioner within a period of three weeks thereafter to post petitioner in a non sensitive post. On the above lines, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs.
O R