CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to condone delay of 839 days to file a third party appeal against acquittal of former minister P Geetha Jeevan in a Rs 2.31 crore disproportionate assets (DA) case.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan passed the orders dismissing the petition, filed by advocate S Shanmugasundaram of Thoothukudi.
The petitioner had prayed for the court to condone the delay so that he could file a third party appeal against the 2022 acquittal order of the principal sessions court, Thoothukudi, since the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption failed to move the appeal.
The DA case was filed against N Periyasamy (since deceased), his daughter Geetha Jeevan, her brothers N P Jegan, N P Raja, and others for amassing wealth of Rs 2.31 crore during 1996-2001 when Periyasamy was an MLA and Geetha Jeevan was the district panchayat chairperson.
The trial court acquitted them, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
Shanmugasundaram had cited delay in getting certified copies of case documents for the late filing of the petition.
Court upholds suspension of dist registrar for forgery, sets aside single judge order
Chennai: To allow an officer facing charges of forgery and conspiracy to continue in service by staying a suspension order based on a cursory glance at file pagination would be to jeopardise the sanctity of the inquiry, said the Madras High Court while setting aside a single judge’s order to temporarily stay the suspension of a district registrar in Tirupathur for allegedly forging signatures of several officers and sending a complaint to the vigilance commission.
The observation and orders were made by the first division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan while allowing an appeal filed by the state government against the single judge’s order. The single judge, by an order dated June 12, 2026, quashed the suspension of A Senthurpandian who faced the action for involving in a criminal conspiracy to forge signatures of 13 district registrars in a spurious communication addressed to the vigilance commission.
The bench, in the recent order, noted that it is an axiomatic principle of administrative law that an order of suspension is not a punishment but a temporary measure to keep an officer from the seat of power during an inquiry into serious charges, and the courts must exercise extreme circumspection before interfering with such order.
