K. JACKULIN Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CJM), THOOTHUKUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition directing the respondents to revoke the suspension order dated 03.06.2020 and reinstate her, in tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India , 2015 7 SCC 291.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that prolonged suspension cannot be sustained. The charges against the petitioner are not very serious and therefore, in the light of the judgment referred, the petitioner will have to be given the benefit of rejoining, after issuing revocation of suspension order.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that number of charges have been framed against the petitioner. Charge memo has also been issued. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry, despite numerous opportunities having been given. Though she has been asked to give a letter undertaking that she is not gainfully employed elsewhere, she has not given anything in writing. Furthermore, the request for reconsideration has been considered and a detailed order has been passed rejecting the request on 06.10.2020.