R.SELVARAJ vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
R.Selvaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Organization
and Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in G.O.
(D) No.207 dated 08.09.2023, served on the petitioner on 21.03.2024 and
quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to pass orders for
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
regulating the period of service from 27.07.2005 to 22.02.2007 and the period
of service from 23.02.2007 to 31.07.2010 as duty period with all
consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary and retirement
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.207 dated
08.09.2023, served on the petitioner on 21.03.2024, and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to pass orders regulating the period of
service from 27.07.2005 to 22.02.2007 and the period of service from
23.02.2007 to 31.07.2010 as duty period, with all consequential benefits,
including payment of arrears of salary and retirement benefits.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present
Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant
Engineer by direct recruitment in the Public Works Department in the year
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer on 27.09.1998. According to the petitioner, he suffered from certain
medical conditions and, therefore, applied for medical leave. Though he
obtained a medical fitness certificate and was willing to rejoin duty, he was
not permitted to rejoin duty and, thereby, was not in a position to perform his
duties between 27.07.2005 and 22.02.2007 and again from 23.02.2007 to
31.07.2010. It is further stated that though he was implicated in a criminal
case, he was subsequently acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai, in C.C.No.8124 of 2006 dated 05.02.2020. In spite of the
fact that he was subsequently acquitted, the alleged period of unauthorised
absence was not treated as duty period; on the other hand, the same was
treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances, without a medical
certificate.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the very fact that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted
would disclose that the suspension was wholly unjustified. Hence, the order
of the respondents not treating the said period as duty period is arbitrary. The
learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, having simultaneously
initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed punishment, the approach of
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
the respondents in treating the period of unauthorised absence as well as the
period of suspension as extraordinary leave without pay would amount to
double jeopardy. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.10407 of 2007 dated 26.03.2024 . Hence, he prayed to allow
the present Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Government Advocate and would contend that the petitioner was involved in
a criminal case relating to job racketeering and that he had cheated one
Gnanasekaran to the tune of Rs.50,000/- by promising to secure an electrician
job in the Public Works Department. Though he was acquitted in the criminal
case, simultaneous departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against him and, after his superannuation, the disciplinary proceedings were
allowed to continue under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, which ultimately
ended against the petitioner with the punishment of withholding pension at
the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of two years. Therefore, the
suspension period was wholly justified. Hence, by exercising the power under
Rule 54-B-1(7) of the Fundamental Rules, the respondents regulated the
suspension period as extraordinary leave without pay.
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
5. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the
petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on account of facing criminal charges.
He had also absconded for some period and obtained anticipatory bail. He
would further submit that the theory of medical leave was projected only to
delay and evade the enquiry proceedings. The learned Government Advocate
would further submit that, though the petitioner sought posting orders, he was
facing serious criminal charges. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned
Government Advocate that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the
impugned order and that the same is sustainable in law. Therefore, he prayed
to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
7. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is with regard to the
period of unauthorised absence between 27.07.2005 and 22.02.2007, which is
about 570 days, and the period of suspension from 23.02.2007 till the date of
his superannuation, viz., 31.07.2010, which is about 1255 days. In respect of
the suspension period, the learned Government Advocate relies upon Rule
54-B-1(7) of the Fundamental Rules, which clearly gives discretion to the
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
authorities to determine whether the suspension was wholly justified or
wholly unjustified. According to the Fundamental Rules, if the suspension is
found to be wholly unjustified, the employee would be entitled to all benefits,
including pay and allowances. However, in the case in hand, the suspension
was on account of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No.8124 of 2006,
which ultimately ended in acquittal.
8. Now, the point to be considered is whether the mere acquittal of the
petitioner is sufficient to hold that the suspension had become wholly
unjustified. This Court would answer the said question in the negative for the
following reasons.
9. Admittedly, simultaneous disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner and ultimately the same were allowed to continue under
the Pension Rules, in which the petitioner was imposed with punishment. The
said punishment has attained finality. Therefore, though he was subsequently
acquitted in the criminal case, the mere acquittal would not give any benefit
to the petitioner to contend that his suspension had become wholly
unjustified, as he suffered punishment in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
cannot be held to be arbitrary.
10. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while exercising the power
of judicial review, this Court can have a mild relook into the orders passed by
the authorities, within the contours of judicial review. The limitation upon
this Court is to examine whether the order was passed by an incompetent
person or whether the same is perverse.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the reason given by the respondent authorities that they were not in a position
to arrive at a conclusion that the suspension was wholly unjustified cannot be
faulted, as the petitioner was involved in serious offences of cheating by
insidiously promising public employment upon receipt of a sum of
Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with
the order insofar as the suspension period from 23.02.2007 to 31.07.2010 is
concerned.
12. Insofar as the period from 27.07.2005 to 22.02.2007 is concerned,
the petitioner contends that the said period was covered by medical leave.
However, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that during
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
the said period, the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution and that he had
absconded and, only thereafter, projected the medical leave application. The
said contention cannot be faulted. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the
alleged denial of permission to join duty, he would have raised his objections
by sending letters or by approaching this Court by way of a writ petition.
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner's calculated reticence between
27.07.2005 and 22.02.2007, his abscondence and the subsequent filing of the
anticipatory bail petition would clearly demonstrate that, though he projected
a case of medical leave, the same cannot be believed. The calculated
reticence of the petitioner would inexorably lead to the conclusion that the
petitioner was unauthorisedly absent during the said period.
14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10407 of 2007
dated 26.03.2024, the factual scenario in the said case is altogether different.
In the said judgment, the petitioner was suspended on account of criminal
proceedings and no departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated,
whereas, in the case in hand, both criminal proceedings as well as
departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
15. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the firm
view that the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case
and that there is no perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs.
01.09.2026
kv
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Organization
and Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )
2026:MHC:3573
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.11890 of 2024
01.09.2026
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:44 pm )