1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:30/9/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.11370 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 D. Amutha Emily Bai :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai. 2.The Treasury Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. :Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records to the order of suspension passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Proc.Rc.12815/2010/C1 dated 9/5/2011 and quash the same as illegal. For petitioner :Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For respondents:Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen,AGP ORDER The impugned order of suspension dated 9/5/2011 passed by the Treasury Officer, Nagercoil, suspending the petitioner from 9/5/2011, is assailed on the ground that it is the case of selective suspension though, a Special Committee headed by the Deputy Regional Director, who conducted an enquiry, has submitted a report alleging that, eight persons were invovled in the misappropriation, the petitioner and another person alone have been picked up and suspended from service. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that, though the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai/first respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings for issuance of charge memorandum dated 31/12/2010, under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, framing four charges, the petitioner was not suspended on account of pendency of the above said charges and therefore, now, after expiry of five months, suspension for the above said allegations are only unwarranted. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, though in respect of alleged misappropriation of Government money, a complaint was lodged by the District Treasury Officer, against one Smt.Jeyadevi and consequently, a First Information Report has also been registered in Crime No.49 of 2010 on the file of Kottar Police Station, now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil. The petitioner has not implicated as an accused in the said crime and therefore, when the respondents had no material to prosecute, suspension after five months from the date of issuance of charge memorandum is unwarranted According to the learned counsel having allowed the petitioner to work despite formulation of discharge, there is no need to suspend at this juncture. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 4.The charges levelled against the petitioner dated 31/12/2010 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 are as follows:- "Charge No:1:Tmt.D.Amutha Emily Bai, Junior Assistant has colluded with Tmt.S.Jeyadevi, Accountant and misappropriated the Government money Rs.2,06,676 by preparing bogus claim of arrear bill in the name of Amutha. Charge No.2:Tmt.D.Amutha Emily Bai, Junior Assistant has prepared bogus claim of arrear bill in her in my relative name viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Tmt.Kalavathi. Charge No.3:She has intentionally neglected her duty to maintain the office record regarding pension schedules and misappropriated government money as per the above irregularities. Charge No.4:Thus, she has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Conduct Rules." 5.The petitioner has offered her explanation on 23/2/2011.Pleadings and material on record disclose that verification of the accounts into various grave irregularities such as collusion with Smt.Jayadevi, misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.2,06,676/- by preparing bogus claim on arrear bill in the name of Amudha, preparation of bogus claim for arrear bill in the petitioner's relatives name and crediting the amount of Rs.1,43,179/- in State Bank of India, a Special Committee headed by the Deputy Regional Director has been constituted and that a report is also submitted by the Committee. Though the petitioner has contended that in the report submitted by the Committee, about eight persons were stated to have been involved in the alleged misappropriation, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the report for perusal of this court, in support of their cotentions. A perusal of the pleadings and material on record shows that initially, on the basis of the report and prima facie, disciplinary proceedings have beeninitiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, calling for explanation from the petitioner and that the same has been submitted on 23/2/2011. The contention of the petitioner that having allowed to work, despite the issuance of a charge memorandum and that therefore, the suspension invoked after five months, is unwarranted, cannot be countenanced for the reason that suspension can be issued even after considering the explanation. She has no legal right to contend that the disciplinary/appointing authority cannot suspend an employee, after sometime. Appropriate decision ca be taken, whether the petitioner has to be placed under suspension or not?, before or after considering the explanation. It is also to be noted that enquiry has been conducted by, with various persons. Charge of misappropriation and preparation of bogus claims of arrear bills, are certainly serious charges involved moral turpitude of the petitioner and that therefore, there is an element of public interest. 6.The impugned order reads that there was a preparation of bogus claims and collusion with one Smt.Jayadevi, Accountant and misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs.2,06,676/-. The contention, selective suspension is rejected, for the reason that the petitioner has not placed the materials against other persons. Even then, it is for the disciplinary/appointing authority to consider the role played by the government servants in the above said acts of misconduct and take appropriate disciplinary action. 7.In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition warranting interference and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai. 2.The Treasury Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. RP/15.11.11/2P/3C. WP(MD)No.11370 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/