S. Palani Samy vs The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board

A. Kulasekaran, J.—Mr. Divakaran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of suspension

dated 15-07-2004 passed by the respondent in his office proceedings Rc. No. 27473/E3(2)/2004-2 and quash the same.

The petitioner was posted as Superintendent/ Village Industries Co-operative Officer in the office of the Assistant Director, Khadi and Village

Industries Board, Tirupur from 29-08-2003; that the land to an extent of 02 acres comprised in T.S. No. 363/1 and 364/1 belong to the Tirupur

Timber and Blacksmithy Workers Industries co-operative society, Tirupur; that one K.M. Chidambaram Pillai and Sons filed a suit O.S. No. 925

of 1985 before the Sub-court, Trichy against the society for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,32,068/-; that the suit was decreed exparte on 20-09-

1989; that the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 59 of 2000 before the Sub-court, Tiruppur, in which the society was set exparte on 07-08-2000; that the

property mentioned above was brought on auction sale on 27-08-2003 for a sum of Rs. 32,10,000/- and the sale was also confirmed on 29-10-

2003.

It is stated that the sale could be set aside if a total sum of Rs. 3,32,068/- is paid before the said date of confirmation of sale, but the petitioner

failed to do so, with the result, the property said to have been worth about Rs. 2 crores was sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 32,10,000/-; that in

respect of the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 15-07-2004, which is impugned in this writ petition; that in the

impugned order, it is clearly mentioned that ''enquiry into grave charges against the petitioner is pending to be contemplated for having committed

certain irregularities regarding the suit initiated against the Tirupur Timber and Black Smithy Industrial Co-operative Society''.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property was sold in auction on 27-08-2003 i.e., two days prior to the joining of the

petitioner, besides that the petitioner was not incharge of conducting the case or settlement of the said dispute and that the petitioner is no way

connected with the alleged irregularities and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of suspension.

The rights and powers of the authority, who passed the order of suspension is not challenged in this writ petition, while so, pending enquiry or

enquiry contemplated, it is open to the authority to place the petitioner under suspension, hence the same is well within the power of the

respondent. Moreover, no prima facie case is made out by the petitioner to justify that he is not assigned with the particular duty of safeguarding

the property or conducting the case. In such circumstance, it is the duty of the court to see whether the suspension order is in accordance with law

or not. It may be true that in case the authority found that the petitioner is not assigned with the said work, appropriate decision will be taken while

reviewing the order of suspension.

It is seen from the records that the impugned order of suspension was passed against the petitioner on 15-07-2004 but the same was not

reviewed till date, hence, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a representation before the same authority or an appeal before the appellate

authority canvassing all the points raised in this writ petition and in such case, the authorities are directed to consider it and pass orders on merits

and in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.