Facts
The applicant, a Tahsildar under the Government of Puducherry, was placed under suspension on June 28, 2024, pending disciplinary proceedings related to four charges concerning property mutation.
Source reference: p.3He challenged several memoranda issued between June 2024 and September 2025, which periodically extended his suspension every 90 days.
Source reference: p.3The applicant alleged that these extensions were mechanical, lacked transparency, and were made without due application of mind, contrary to established legal principles regarding reasoned reviews of suspension.
Source reference: p.3, 4He sought the quashing of these suspension orders and a direction for reinstatement with all service benefits.
Source reference: p.3During the pendency of this Original Application (OA), the applicant was officially removed from service following the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Source reference: p.4Issues
Whether the challenge against the applicant’s suspension orders and the prayer for reinstatement remain maintainable following his removal from service.
Source reference: p.4, para 3Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the legal principle of "infructuousness" in the context of administrative service law.
Source reference: p.4Once a final order of penalty (such as removal from service) is passed, any interlocutory challenge to a prior suspension order pending those proceedings becomes redundant, as the suspension is superseded by the final discharge of the employee from service.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
Counsel for the applicant informed the Bench that the applicant had already been removed from service.
Source reference: p.4, para 3Since the primary relief sought in the OA was the quashing of suspension and reinstatement into service, the court determined that the finality of the removal order rendered the suspension challenge moot.
Source reference: p.4, para 4The court did not delve into the merits of the "mechanical extension" argument because the applicant’s service relationship had already been terminated by a separate final order, meaning no effective relief could be granted regarding the period of suspension in the current proceedings.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Tribunal held that since the applicant had been removed from service, nothing survived for adjudication in the present OA.
The application was closed as infructuous.
Source reference: p.4, para 4No order as to costs was passed.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
S ManikandanvsUT OF PUDUCHERRY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in