P. KANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the order dtd. 20/12/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2165 of 2015, the matter has come up before the Larger Bench.

(2.) The reference by the learned Single Judge is on account of two conflicting judgments delivered by the Division Benches on a challenge to the order of suspension. By the order of reference, the learned Single Judge referred to the view expressed by a Division Bench in the case of the Director General of Police and another v. T.Kamarajan, 2019 SCC Online Mad 35836, and the subsequent judgment delivered by another Division Bench in the case of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO and others v. R.Balaji [Judgment dtd. 27/8/2021 passed inW.A.No.68 of 2021], where a view different than the view expressed earlier by the Division Bench in T.Kamarajan, supra, has been taken.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 20/12/2021 by which the reference has been made to the Larger Bench submitted that the issue regarding prolonged suspension of an employee was settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, but holding the said judgment to be not laying down an absolute proposition on a challenge to the order of suspension, the order of suspension was not interfered and for that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed by the Division Bench in the case of T.Kamarajan, supra, while the other Division Bench in the case of R.Balaji, supra, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge where interference with the order of suspension was made in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra.