LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-150

K VEERASAMY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER PERIYAR DISTRICT

Decided On July 14, 2008
K. VEERASAMY Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER PERIYAR DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

(2.) THE petitioner had submitted that he was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Murungatholuvu village, Periyar District. While he was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Enjampalli Village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District, the Revenue Divisional Officer, had placed the petitioner under suspension by his proceedings, dated 21.7.1991, on the ground that an enquiry into the grave charges was contemplated. THE petitioner had challenged the said order of suspension by an original application in O.A.No.761 of 1992, filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. By an order, dated 23.12.1992, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was pleased to allow the original application granting liberty to the Revenue Divisional Officer to post the petitioner outside the District. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated and posted as a Village Administrative Officer, Pandianpalayam village in Perundurai Taluk by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 1.2.1993.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are bad in law as there was no conviction against the petitioner at the relevant point of time and this Court was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1994. When the sentence has been suspended, the mere payment of fine, which is the condition precedent in filing the appeal, cannot be taken as though the petitioner had undergone the sentence or that the guilt has been established.