WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/07/2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 and WMP(MD)Nos.14971 and 14972 of 2026 A.Sundarraj ... Petitioner Vs The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the suspension order passed in C. No.F1/50053/651/2025 dated 24.11.2025 by respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner following G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen For Respondent : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Civil Side) 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 ORDER The petitioner herein was placed under suspension while working as a Head Constable in the Control Room, Virudhunagar District. He was placed under suspension vide the proceedings dated 24.11.2025 on the alleged misconduct of having illegal intimacy with Tmt.Rasathi, thereby tarnishing the image of the Department. As the said suspension was continued beyond three months, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition complaining that the respondent, who is under obligation to review the order of suspension in terms of the order issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, failed to review the suspension and illegally continuing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that no charge memo has been issued as on date to the petitioner. 2. On the other hand, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned Counsel for Government appearing for the respondent submits that the charge memo is under preparation and would be issued to the petitioner shortly. He further submits that the respondent would review the orders 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 of suspension of the petitioner in the light of the order issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022. 3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record. 4. A perusal of G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 04.08.2022, especially paragraph 11 therein, it is clear that there is an obligation cast on the respondent to review the order of suspension on an expiry of three months period of suspension and accordingly, submit a report to the higher authorities and then pass a reasoned order duly reviewing the orders of suspension and examining the aspect as to whether it is necessary to continue the delinquent employee under suspension or to revoke the orders of suspension. Paragraph 11 of the said Government order reads as under: “11. The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:- 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 (i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint. Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concemed must be clear in mind that it is necessary, Prolonged suspension means that Government pays a Government Servant without extracting any work from him. In view of the above position, the suspension should not be resorted to unless the concerned authority has considered all the relevant factors and recorded his reasoned conclusion that it is in the public interest to place the Government Servant under suspension. (ii) Where a Government Servant has been suspended on disciplinary proceedings contemplated, such proceedings should be initiated immediately and finalized normally within a period of six months. (iii) In cases, where a Government Servant has been suspended and the matter has been referred for investigation to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for enquiry, the latter should complete the enquiry and send the report to Government through the Vigilance Commission within one year (iv) In respect of cases referred to under items (ii) and (iii) above, the authority who ordered the suspension or the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, as the case may be, 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 should, before the expiry of the period of three months, report the matter to the Head of the Department/Government, indicating the progress of the disciplinary action/investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the reasons for non completion of the work and the further time required for completing the disciplinary action / investigation and furnish reasons for continuing the suspension, if continued suspension is felt essential. If the authority which Initiated action in the first instance is the Head of the Department, the report has to be sent to Government. (v) After the initial report referred to in item (iv) above, reports should be sent to Government at the end of every three months, indicating the further progress, so as to enable the Government to review the suspension and the progress of the case, for such action as may be necessary to ensure expeditious disposal. (vi) The Head of the Department or the Government as the case may be, will examine the cases with reference to the subject matter of the disciplinary action/investigation in progress and the reported stage of progress and permit the continued suspension beyond three months/six months. Where the Government itself, have ordered suspension, it will examine the case on the same lines and pass similar order. (vii) The disciplinary authorities should ensure that the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 delay in processing the case is not due to delaying tactics of the Government Servant. They should ensure that all notices issued to the suspended Government Servant should reach him without any loss of time. (viii) When the disciplinary authority comes to a conclusion suo-motu or after conclusion of the investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the disciplinary authority shall, while initiating action by issue of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be, examine with reference to the facts established, which form the basis for the charges, whether public interest or the needs for further proceedings will require continued suspension of the Government Servant already under suspension. (ix) The time limits mentioned above will not be applicable to cases of Government Servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. However, while sanctioning prosecution in such a criminal case, an examination similar to the one mentioned in item (vii) above shall be made by the competent authority (x) If, on examination of the case under items (vi), (viii) or (ix) above, continued suspension is considered not 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 necessary, the suspension may be revoked in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 17(e)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as the case may be. (xi) in cases where the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact and the disciplinary authority is not in a position to finalize the departmental disciplinary proceeding and if the criminal case is based on theon vigilance report and is pending before the court of law for which no reasons are explained explicitly, the authority compelent may take a decision by laking up review of suspension and post the Government Servant in a non-sensitive place in consultation with the appropriate investigating authority / Vigilance Commission case to case basis in view of the reason that prolonged suspension and paying subsistence allowance for a long period without extracting work is not at all acceptable. Such revocation of suspension can be made based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the delay in serving the memorandam of charges / charge sheet. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras P.Kannan case, given in para 5 above, shall be taken into account. (xii)Suspension will continue to be in force unless it is revoked as mentioned under item (x) above.” 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 4. But in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent herein has discharged the obligation under the said Government Order and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case, where, there should be a direction to the respondent to review the order of suspension dated 24.11.2025. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to review the order of suspension dated 24.11.2025 duty taking into consideration paragraph 11 of G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resources Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022 and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM To, 1. The Superintendent of Police, 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 Virudhunagar District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM WP(MD). No.20215 of 2026 and WMP(MD)Nos.14971 and 14972 of 2026 Date : 16/07/2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis