K SARAVANAN Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Clerk in the respondent Port Trust. He has come forward to challenge the order of suspension dated 21.12.2004. By the said order, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending departmental action for the misconduct committed by him.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that the order of suspension had been extended every 90 days and no charge memo was issued for nearly one and half years. Finally it was issued only on 10.04.2006. The suspension was unnecessary as it had been granted on vexatious complaint. IT was stated that the subsistence allowance paid to him was not revised.

(3.) IN view of the above facts, Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that at this juncture, he is not attacking the suspension order. It would be suffice if enhanced revision of subsistence allowance is given in view of the prolonged suspension which is pending for the last six years. But however, Mr.M.R.Dharanichander, learned counsel for the Port Trust states that in view of the stand taken in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, such enhanced revision is not permissible.