S.PREMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The regularisation of period of suspension made by the third respondent, which was confirmed by the second respondent, is sought to be quashed and further directions are sought for to regularise the period of suspension as duty for all purposes with monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner states that her late husband Thiru M.Subbiah was initially appointed as Bill Collector on 20/6/1976 in Town Panchayat and subsequently awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Bill Collector. The husband of the writ petitioner was retired from service on 30/4/2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, he was placed under suspension in proceedings dtd. 29/3/1993 and a charge memo was issued on 21/8/1993 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The departmental enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the final order was passed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings and the period of suspension was treated as suspension without pay as a measure of punishment and subsequently, the husband of the writ petitioner was reinstated.

(3.) The order of the Disciplinary Authority states that the said punishment of suspension without pay as a measure will not adversely affect the pensionary benefits. The husband of the writ petitioner preferred an appeal on 23/2/1998 and the third respondent issued an order of erratum removing the words 'the effect of punishment does not adversely affect his pensionary benefits be deleted'. The husband of the writ petitioner preferred further appeal on 21/1/2008 and the fourth respondent rejected the said appeal on 12/4/2008. Thereafter, the husband of the writ petitioner filed WP No.29851 of 2010 to quash the order dtd. 12/4/2008 issued by the fourth respondent. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 12/4/2008 and the fourth respondent was directed to forward the appeal filed by the husband of the writ petitioner on 23/2/1998 to the second respondent and the second respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months.