P. Rajendran vs Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge an order dated 25.10.2012 issued by the first respondent

viz., Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short CMDA), wherein and by which, he had posted one B.

Ravichandran, Planning Assistant Grade II, Enforcement Cell as Planning Officer to St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union and Chitlapakkam Town

Panchayat on working arrangement in the place of the petitioner, who is said to be under suspension. The said Ravichandran, who is now been

posted has been made as 5th respondent in the writ petition. It was also stated that he has to visit St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union on all

Mondays to Thursdays and Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat on all Fridays. It is not clear as to how the petitioner has chosen to challenge the

posting order given to the 5th respondent with which he is no way concerned with. The contention of the petitioner was that posting the 5th

respondent in his place was not valid since the said posting was made as if he was under suspension and there was a vacancy.

It is seen from the records R. Ramamoorthy and Mahalakshmi filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 17173 of 2012, challenging the order

passed by the Zonal Office, Corporation of Chennai, Sholinganallur dated 28.5.2012 and also seeking for plan approval and construction put up

by them in building at No. 2/585 A, Singaravelar Nagar Cross Street, S. No. 82/15, Neelankarai, Chennai-41.

When the matter came up on 2.8.2012, the Division Bench before which the matter came found that the building in question was allowed by the

petitioner to be constructed, which is a huge palatial building and it was completed in a span of two years and all along, no action was taken to

stop the construction. The building was constructed without any approval and planning permission as required u/s 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and

Country Planning Act. Though a counter affidavit was filed by the CMDA, since the entire construction was unauthorised, the Division Bench

directed the Government Pleader to get instructions as to why the matter should not be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further

investigation and also to fix the responsibility on the officers, who had allowed the said writ petitioners to go ahead with the construction. The

matter was directed to be posted after two weeks.

It was in the mean while, the District Collector, Kancheepuram by order dated 20.8.2012 placed the petitioner under suspension based upon

preliminary enquiry held. The petitioner was accused that he failed to take necessary action to demolish the unauthorised construction, which was

put up by the owners of the building of the place. In the mean while, when W.P. No. 17173 of 2012 came up for hearing on 24.9.2012, the

Division Bench by an order dated 24.9.2012 recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader that enquiry was initiated against the

concerned officers and directed the respondent State to complete the departmental enquiry and to pass final orders as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of two months. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 20.12.2012 to enable the Government Pleader to submit

the result of the enquiry.

However, notwithstanding the fact that the matter has been seized by the Division Bench and the Division Bench is monitoring the enquiry, the

petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 23967 of 2012 challenging the order of suspension. The said matter came to be

heard by a learned Judge and was allowed by an order dated 12.9.2012 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated within seven days.

Though in the said order, a reference was made to the interim order passed by the Division Bench on 2.8.2012, but the matter which was

subsequently posted for further orders was not set out. But however, the order of suspension has been quashed on technical ground.

Alleging the said order has not been obeyed, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 1569 of 2012 which is still pending before this Court.

But in the mean while, CMDA, on coming to know that planning permission has been stalled in 15 Panchayats has made an interim arrangement to

take care of the post held by the petitioner and therefore, posted the 5th respondent on a working arrangement basis to visit local bodies as per the

impugned order.

It is not clear as to how the petitioner can challenge the said order. The petitioner has no vested right to have a posting subsequent to the

suspension being set aside by this Court. As he himself has held, he is an employee of the CMDA holding the post of Planner and therefore, if at all

the order passed by this Court has become final, it is for the CMDA to place him at an appropriate place depending upon work exigency and also

the nature of enquiry to be held against the petitioner.

It is now stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that as against the order passed by the learned single Judge, writ appeal has been

filed, which is at the SR Stage in W.A.S.R. No. 90208 of 2012. Unless the result of the Division Bench is obtained, the petitioner''s restoration of

service cannot be granted. Even otherwise, if any suspension is revoked pending enquiry, this Court time and again has held that such persons

without prejudice to the enquiry can be posted only to a non-sensitive place far off from the present place of posting, where alleged irregularities

took place. A reference may be made to the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Madras Vs. K.A. Joseph, . Merely because the CMDA

has made working arrangement, that itself is not a ground for the petitioner to challenge the same, as he has no locus standi to question such

posting order as it does not relate to the case of the petitioner. Further, after revoking suspension, if any made by the CMDA, it is not a

requirement that petitioner should get the same post which itself is only on a foreign service basis and not regular posting. In the light of the above,

no case is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.