1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD)Nos.19 & 20 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2011: P.Thangavelu ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 2.The Thasildhar, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: The Appeal is filed filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3437 of 2010 dated 02.11.2010. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the documents pertaining to the impugned suspension order passed by the second respondent Na.Ka.No.23536-2009-A2 dated 29.08.2009 and the consequential rejection order of petitioner's plea in Na.Ka.NO.5825-2009-A1, dated 08.02.2010 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. W.A.(MD)No.20 of 2011: M.Pandi ... Appellants Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 2.The Thasildhar, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer: The Appeal is filed filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3544 of 2010 dated 02.11.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the documents pertaining to the impugned suspension order passed by the second respondent Na.Ka.No.23536-2009-A2, dated 29.08.2009 and the consequential rejection order of the petitioner's plea in Na.Ka.No.5825- 2009-A1, dated 08.02.2010 and to quash the same and consequentially , to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitiner into service. For Appellants in both WPs : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents in both Wps : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J.) These Writ Appeals are directed against a common order dated 02.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.2704, 3437, 3458, 3544, 3883, 7275 and 7325 of 2010, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and upheld the order of suspension passed against the appellants, suspending them from the services of Village Assistants. 2.The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the appellants, who were employed as Village Assistants, were placed under suspension by the second respondent on 29.08.2009 on the ground of demanding and accepting bribe and a case was registered against them before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The appellants have not disclosed how much amount they have demanded and accepted. The said order of suspension were passed under Rule 17(e)(i)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The appellants earlier filed W.P.(MD).Nos.10244 and 10245 of 2009 and prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider their representations dated 08.09.2009 for revocation of suspension dated 29.08.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent. 3.The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by giving direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the appellants dated 08.09.2009 and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks. The first respondent, by order dated 08.02.2010, rejected the request of the appellants seeking reinstatement in service and stated that consequent on trap by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, they were placed under suspension and due to the pendency of cases before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Madurai in Roc.No.245/2010/A1 (TDP.18/2010), the orders of suspension cannot be revoked. 4.Again the appellants filed W.P.(MD).Nos.3437 and 3544 of 2010 to reinstate them into service. This Court, by common order dated 02.11.2010, dismissed the Writ Petitions. 5.Aggrieved over the said order of dismissal, the appellants filed these Writ appeals and prayed to set aside the order dated 02.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)Nos.3437 and 3544 of 2010. 6.The appellants are Village Assistants in Villur Bit II, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Thirumangalam Taluk and they are involved in a corruption charge. The case is pending against the appellants before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai and a serious corruption charge is levelled against the appellants, for demanding Rs.500/- and accepting Rs.100/- as bribe advance and demanded Rs.400/- as balance bribe amount from one M.Samayan for providing Farmer's Agricultural Identity Card on 10.08.2009 and 11.08.2009. The request of the appellants seeking reinstatement in service was negatived by the respondents, as there is no change in circumstance. 7.The contention raised in the Writ Appeals is that the suspension orders having been issued on 29.08.2009, the same are bound to be set aside, since the cases before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Madurai in Roc.No.245/2010/A1(TDP.18/2010) in respect of the charge against the appellants is not disposed of. 8.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 9.For proper appreciation, it is desirable to extract Rule 17(e) (i)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which read as follows:- ""17(e)(i)(2):a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest." 10.It is an admitted case that the appellants, who are Village Assistants, employed in Taluk Office in Thirumangalam, Madruai District, have involved in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption case and charges are pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Madurai in Roc.No.245/2010/A1(TDP.18/2010). A person, who is facing criminal charge, can be placed under suspension or not, is no longer res integra. In a given case, the department can review the order of suspension on the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the public interest. An employee cannot demand revocation of suspension as a matter of right. 11.In W.A.No.1114 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007, a Division Bench of this Court [SJMJ as he then was and NPVJ], in the case of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. N.Shanmugasundaram, set aside the order of a learned Single Judge quashing an order of suspension and allowed the Writ Appeal and upheld the order of suspension on similar ground. A Division Bench of this Court [NPVJ and NKKJ] in the case of M.Rajammal v. Principal District Judge reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 212 held that Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, contemplates that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending or a complaint against him or any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. In the said Judgment, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union reported in AIR 1959 SC 1342 : 1959 II LLJ 544 and in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 787 : 1966 II LLJ 164 were followed and upheld https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the similar order of suspension. In W.A.No.1818 of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, a Division Bench of this Court [RBIJ and NPVJ], in the case of S.Jeevanantham vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and others considered an identical issue and confirmed the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, which was filed challenging the order of suspension. Suspension orders were also upheld in the case of D.Gnanasekaran v. Chief Educational Officer reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 457 and in the case of S.Jeyasingh Rajan v. President, Kalloorani Panchayat reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 59. The Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and another vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in 1997 (4) SCC 1, upheld the order of suspension of a bank employee, who was facing a criminal offence involving in moral turpitude. In the said Judgment, the order of the High Court, Allahabad, quashing the order of suspension was set aside and the appeal filed by the bank was allowed. 12.The Supreme Court in the decision in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 458 held that corruption in the administration has hampered the development of the Nation and the persons, who involved in the corruption cases, should be dealt with firmly and the persons indulging in corruption practices cannot be allowed to be in public employment to maintain purity of administration, as such attitude will definitely affect public interest. In Paragraph No.7, it is held thus:- "7. Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and moralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. [See: Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana 1997 (4) SCC 14 and State of M.P v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar 2002 (1) SCC 1." 13. The Supreme Court in the decisions in R.P.Kapoor v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 787l; Balwantray Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1968 SC 800; A.K.K.Nambiar v. Union of India reported in 1969 (3) SCC 864; V.P.Gidroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1970 (1) SCC 362; Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghosh reported in 1971 (1) SCC 734; Government of Andhra Pradesh v V.Sivaraman reported in 1990 (3) SCC 57; Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Manti Samiti Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajah reported in 1993 (2) LLN 11; State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in 1994 (1) LLN 889; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Singh reported in 2000 (5) SCC 88; State Bank of India v. Rattan Singh reported in 2000 (10) SCC 396; K.C.Sareen v. CBI reported in 2001 (6) SCC 584; Union of India v Rajiv Kumar reported in 2003 (6) SCC 516, categorically held that a person involved in a criminal case, particularly in corruption case, can be placed under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 suspension till he is exonerated and he can claim only subsistence allowance. 14. In the light of the above categorical pronouncements of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and having regard to the undisputed fact that the appellants are involved in criminal case, that too, in a bribe case, they have no right to seek revocation of the suspension orders. Hence, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the appellants, who indulged in corrupt practices. 15. In the result, the order dated 02.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD). Nos.3437 and 3544 of 2010 are confirmed and the Writ Appeals are dismissed in limine. However, after the final report is filed in Roc.No.245/2010/A1 (TDP.18/2010), it is open to the appellants to seek review of the order of suspension and it is for the competent authority to consider the same in the light of the statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the Government and if any decision is taken against the appellants by the authority concerned, the appellants have to wait till they are exonerated finally. It is made clear that if subsistence allowance is not paid, the respondents are directed to pay subsistence allowance to the appellants during the period in which they are kept under suspension. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 2.The Thasildhar, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 993 W.A.(MD)Nos.19 and 20 of 2011 07.01.2011 nbj PAM 02.03.2011/4C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/