Read Time: 07 minutes

The Madras High Court has quashed the suspension order of Ex-ABVP President, Dr. Subbiah Shanmugham from Kilpauk Medical College Hospital over his alleged association with a political organization in violation of service rules. 

The bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar directed the Tamil Nadu Government to complete the departmental inquiry against Dr. Subbiah within a period of 12 weeks. The Bench further directed Subbiah to extend cooperation for the same.

Subbiah was transferred and posted as Professor of Surgical Oncology in Kilpauk Medical College and Surgical Oncologist in Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai by the Health and Family Welfare Department on October 31, 2016.

Later on, the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk passed an order of suspension against Subbiah on the alleged ground that complaints and reports against him had been contemplated for his association with political organizations, political statements, activities, and propaganda expressing disloyal sentiments.

It was held that Subbiah had violated Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and thus he was placed on suspension under Rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, until further order.

The Counsel appearing for Subbiah argued that the suspension order has been passed on untenable grounds; he was never visited with a single memo all these years and wasn't issued any charge memo.

He further stated that according to the rules a member can be placed on suspension when an inquiry into grave charges is pending and not merely when grave complaints and reports are pending.

Referring to the judgment in D.R.P Sundharam v Canara Bank, rep by its executive Director (2008), where it was held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings means that a charge memo should be pending, he contended that unless Subbiah was issued with a charge memo and inquiry into the same is pending, he could not be placed under suspension.

Subbiah's counsel further added that as per Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Director could only suspend officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeon only whereas Subbiah is a Professor.

Thus, the Director of Medical Education was incompetent to pass an order as decided by the Supreme Court in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan (1989), he asserted.

On the contrary, the Advocate General for the respondent stated that the order for suspension is perfectly valid in law. He added that "the Director does not have powers under the rules. However, he sent a proposal to the state which had rectified the action of the Director by passing the G.O (D) No. 234."

The furhter submitted that based on the complaints as well as the available materials, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated and the Subbiah may raise his concerns at that time.

Court considered Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) rules and stated that when the Act prescribes the particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body, it cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated.

Court further held that the respondents could not prove that the state had delegated the power to the Director to issue the Suspension order.

Therefore, Court opined, "the order was passed by an incompetent authority and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to reinstate Mr. Subbiah in service with all monetary benefits as per the rules."

Case Title: Dr. S. Subbiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary and Anr.