The Personal Assistant (Development) Vs M.Balasubramanian

The Personal Assistant (Development) vs M.Balasubramanian

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 24, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1660004

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1660004
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan,Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy
Decided On: Apr 24, 2026
Case Number: WA(MD)/1057/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Personal Assistant (Development)

Respondent

M.Balasubramanian

Excerpt

.....vide order dated 01.10.2021, the jurisdictional block development officer suspended the writ petitioner from service. the reason for passing the said order was that the writ petitioner had allegedly campaigned in support of his wife in the localbody election. the learned single judge interfered with the said orderand directed the writ petitioner's reinstatement. questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed. 3.there is no need to go into the merits of the matter at all. anyorder of suspension must serve a purpose. the order of suspension wasmade as early as on 01.10.2021. we are now in april 2026. more than 4½ years have elapsed. while an order of suspension is not deemed to be a punishment, prolonged suspension partakes a punitive character. suspension should not be indefinitely continued. the case on hand would fall under the category of prolonged suspension. it becomes unnecessary considering the nature of the allegations made against him.4.in this view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the orderof the learned single judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed. the writ petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and without anydelay. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (g.r.s. j.,) & (s.s.y. j.,) 24.04.2026 ncc : yes/no index : yes / no internet : yes/ no ias to: 1.the personal assistant (development) to district collector, tirunelveli district, tirunelveli. 2.the block development officer (village panchayats), 3.the block development officer (village panchayats), manoor panchayat union, manoor post, 4.the special officer / block development officer (village panchayats), kasthurirengapuram village panchayat,g.r.swaminathan, j.ands.srimathy, j.ias 24.04.2026

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and C.M.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2022 1.The Personal Assistant (Development) to District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), 3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Manoor Panchayat Union, Manoor Post, 4.The Special Officer / Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Kasthurirengapuram Village Panchayat, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants Vs. M.Balasubramanian ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.10862 of 2022 dated 01.07.2022 on the file of this Court. For Appellants : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanakumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.) The State has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P(MD)No.10862 of 2020 filed by the respondent herein. 2.The respondent herein was working as Secretary of Kasthurirengapuram Village Panchayat. Vide order dated 01.10.2021, the jurisdictional Block Development Officer suspended the writ petitioner from service. The reason for passing the said order was that the writ petitioner had allegedly campaigned in support of his wife in the local

body election. The learned Single Judge interfered with the said order

and directed the writ petitioner's reinstatement. Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed. 3.There is no need to go into the merits of the matter at all. Any

order of suspension must serve a purpose. The order of suspension was

made as early as on 01.10.2021. We are now in April 2026. More than 4½ years have elapsed. While an order of suspension is not deemed to be a punishment, prolonged suspension partakes a punitive character. Suspension should not be indefinitely continued. The case on hand would fall under the category of prolonged suspension. It becomes unnecessary considering the nature of the allegations made against him.

4.In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the order

of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed. The writ petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and without any

delay. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (S.S.Y. J.,) 24.04.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: 1.The Personal Assistant (Development) to District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), 3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Manoor Panchayat Union, Manoor Post, 4.The Special Officer / Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Kasthurirengapuram Village Panchayat,

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

and

S.SRIMATHY, J.

ias 24.04.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties The Personal Assistant (Development) vs M.Balasubramanian Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan,Honourable Mrs Justice ...