Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs R.Ravindranath on 30 June, 2026
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WA No. 801 of 2026 AND
CMP NO. 8454 OF 2026
1. The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Registration
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore,
Chennai-04.
..Appellants
Vs
R.Ravindranath
S/o. G.Ramasamy,
Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
(Under Supension), Formerly Deputy Inspector
General of Registration Salem.
..Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the
Order dated 25.11.2025 made in WP No. 38990 of 2025.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Gowthaman,
Additional Advocate General
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Elumalai for Sole Respondent
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 25.11.2025 made in W.P.No.38990
of 2025.
2. The State preferred the present intra court appeal under Clause XV
of the Letters Patent mainly on the ground that the writ Court has not
considered the gravity of the charges as well as the criminal case registered
against the respondent and revoked the order or suspension. Revocation of
suspension, in the considered opinion of the department, may cause prejudice
and there is likelihood of causing inconvenience to the free and fair
departmental enquiry. Pertinently, charge memo has been issued and
therefore the respondent has to participate in the process of departmental
enquiry and defend his case to prove his innocence.
3. Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the appellant State would mainly contend that serious allegations of
index corrections in the original documents based on forged documents are
identified in the Registration Department. Since the allegations are grave and
serious, the department has placed the respondent under suspension. A
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
criminal case was registered and the respondent has been arrayed as
Accused No.6. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed.
However, the respondent obtained an order of interim stay of all further
proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2026 dated
29.05.2026. On account of the interim stay, the criminal case is not
proceeded with.
4. The writ Court has not considered the fact that the respondent was
holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and is involved in
a criminal case relating to correction of original index documents in
registration department. He was arrested and released on bail. Departmental
proceedings are initiated and he was placed under suspension. In these
circumstances, the writ Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the
order of suspension. Thus, the State preferred the present writ appeal.
5. Mr. S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would submit that the criminal case has already been stayed by
the High Court. In the departmental proceedings, charge memorandum has
been issued. The respondent is ready and willing to defend his case before
the disciplinary authority. In these circumstances, continuation of suspension
is unnecessary. He is already under suspension for about one year and nine
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
months and therefore the Writ Court, considering the long period of
suspension. Thus the present appeal is to be rejected.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties
to the lis.
7. Suspension is not a punishment. Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules contemplates that, a member of
service may be placed under suspension from service where,
i. a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or pending or,
ii. a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under
investigation, inquiry or trial.
8. Subrule (2) to Rule 17(e) stipulates that a government servant, who is
detained in custody (whether on a criminal charge or otherwise) for a period
longer than 48 hours, is automatically considered suspended from service
under this rule.
9. On testing the correctness of the order of suspension, there is no
infirmity as such. In the present case, admittedly a criminal case has been
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
registered against the respondent in Crime No.2 of 2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 448, 427, 379, 465, 467, 468
and 471 IPC. He was arrested by the police on 29.05.2024 at 10.30 hours and
remanded to judicial custody till 08.10.2024. Therefore, he was under
custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. Thus, the order of suspension
cannot be said to be perverse or infirm. Simultaneously, departmental
disciplinary proceedings are initiated.
10. The second ground raised by the respondent is prolonged
suspension. No doubt, there are judgments holding that prolonged suspension
is not desirable. However, each case is to be considered based on the facts
and circumstances and the gravity and nature of the offences in the criminal
case or the allegations in the departmental proceedings and the element of
public interest. Suspension orders are passed in the public interest.
11. The Full Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of P. Kannan
v The Commissioner for Municipal Administration and Others 1, perused
various judgments of the Supreme Court and various judgments of Division
Benches of this High Court with respect to applicability of the proposition
as to time limit of order of suspension, laid down in Ajay Kumar
1
MANU/TN/2490/2022; (2022) SCC OnLine Mad 1154.
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
Choudhary2 as two different views were taken by two separate Division
Benches, and held that, the challenge to order of suspension must be decided
based on the facts of the case. This Court answered the reference as
follows:
“34. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is
answered by holding that:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down
absolute proposition of law that an order of
suspension cannot be continued beyond the
period of three months if the memorandum of
charges/chargesheet has not been served within
three months, or if memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is served without reasoned
order of extension.
(ii) The judgment in R.Balaji, supra, has no
reference to the earlier judgments of co-equal
strength and is thereby rendered per incuriam.
(iii) The issue of challenge to the order of
suspension should be analyzed on the facts of
each case, considering the gravity of the charges
and the rules applicable.
(iv) Revocation of suspension with a direction to the
employer to post the delinquent in a non-sensitive2
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and Another, MANU/SC/0161/2015__________
Page6 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572WA No. 801 of 2026
post cannot be endorsed or directed as a matter of
course. It has to be based on the facts of each case
and after noticing the reason for the delay in serving
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet.”
12. The scope of judicial review over suspension orders has been
succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal3. The Court, after considering several earlier decisions, held
as follows:
“ 10. In view of the above, the law on the issue can
be summarised to the effect that suspension order
can be passed by the competent authority
considering the gravity of the alleged
misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or
commission and the nature of evidence
available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide,
arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on
public interest due to the employee’s
continuation in office is also a relevant and
determining factor. The facts of each case have
to be taken into consideration as no formula of
universal application can be laid down in this
regard. However, suspension order should be
passed only where there is a strong prima facie case
against the delinquent, and if the charges stand3
MANU/SC/1222/2013.
__________
Page7 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572WA No. 801 of 2026
proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major
punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or
reduction in rank etc.…….
14. ……..wherein it has been observed that even if a
criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is
ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of
suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the
competent authority who can always review its order
of suspension being an inherent power conferred
upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising
such a power, the authority can consider the case of
an employee for revoking the suspension order, if
satisfied that the criminal case pending would be
concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the
employee concerned. Where the charges are
baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only
to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case
for judicial review is made out. But in a case where
no conclusion can be arrived at without examining
the entire record in question and in order that the
disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered
the court may not interfere. In case the court comes
to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding
expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results
in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent__________
Page8 of 14https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572WA No. 801 of 2026
employee, the court may issue directions. The court
may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper
explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry,
direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated
period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry
or trial can not be a ground for quashing the
suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature.
But, whether the employee should or should not
continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a
matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority
concerned and ordinarily the court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension unless they
are passed in mala fide and without there being even
a prima facie evidence on record connecting the
employee with the misconduct in question.
Suspension is a device to keep the
delinquent out of the mischief range. The
purpose is to complete the proceedings
unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in
aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the
delinquent may not gain custody or control of
papers or take any advantage of his position.
More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the
court may find out as which version is true when
there are claims and counter claims on factual
issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate
forum de hors the powers of judicial review.”
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
13. Let us now consider the gravity of the allegations made against the
respondent. A criminal case has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2022 under
Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 448, 427, 379, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thus,
the alleged offences under the above provisions are undoubtedly serious in
nature. Charge sheet has already been filed in the criminal case. Trial is
stalled on account of the interim stay obtained by the respondent in
Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2026 dated 29.05.2026.
14. Regarding the departmental disciplinary proceedings, charge
memorandum has been issued vide proceedings dated 29.05.2026. Annexure
2 to the charge memorandum provides the nature of allegations. Statement of
imputations, list of documents are cited in the charge memorandum. Thus,
the charge memorandum has been issued in accordance with the procedures
as contemplated. A perusal of the allegations would show that index
documents maintained by the registration department has been tampered with
and corrections are made on three occasions for registering bogus
documents. It is for the department to conduct an inquiry into the allegations
by affording opportunity to the respondent to defend his case.
15. Since the allegations are very serious and the respondent is holding
the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration, revocation of suspension
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
at this point of time may cause prejudice to the department and will be against
public interest. The powers of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration is
wider and he will be controlling a zone consisting eleven districts.
16. Therefore, revocation of suspension would have certain implications
in the present case. The respondent is a State level officer and was holding
the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and conduct of free and
fair enquiry is essential and since the original index documents and other
relevant records are to be protected by the Sub Registrars, subordinate
officers to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered view that revocation of suspension in the present case will
be opposed to public interest. Considering the gravity of the allegations made
both in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings and considering
the fact that the respondent is holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of
Registration and the departmental proceedings, examination of documents
and examination of departmental witnesses are to be conducted, it is
desirable to keep the respondent away from performing his official functions till
such time the enquiry proceedings are concluded. However, the Government
is at liberty to review the order of suspension at an appropriate time.
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
17. Thus, the appellants are directed to proceed with the departmental
enquiry and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. The
respondent is directed to cooperate for early disposal of the departmental
enquiry proceedings by not seeking unnecessary adjournments on flimsy
grounds. If any non-cooperation on the part of the delinquent officer, the
disciplinary officer shall record the same and proceed with the enquiry and
pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.
18. With the above observations, the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in
W.P.No.38990 of 2025 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
30-06-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KST
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai-04.
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:2572
WA No. 801 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
KST
WA No. 801 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 8454 OF 2026
30-06-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
