IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition No.3406 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 M.Sreerangan Petitioner Vs The Tahsildar, Salem District. Respondent Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated 10.01.2007 in Roc No.752/2007/A1 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Subramanian, GA O R D E R Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The petitioner is a Village Assistant now under suspension. While he was working as Village Assistant, during the year 2007, a case in Crime No.01/AC/2007 dated 10.01.2007, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, came to be registered against the petitioner and one Mr.A.Subramani who was the then Village Administrative Officer, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem District under whom the petitioner was working. The petitioner was one of the accused in the said case. In the trap made, the petitioner was arrested while he allegedly accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,800/-, it is contended. Later on, the petitioner was released on bail. Based on the involvement of the petitioner in the above said criminal case, he was placed under suspension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the respondent by his proceedings in Roc.No.752/2007/A1 dated 10.01.2007. The said order of suspension is under challenge in this writ petition. 3.The main accused Mr.Subramani, the Village Administrative Officer was also arrested and detained in the police custody and he was released on bail. Earlier, Mr.Subramani filed W.P.No.20142 of 2007, seeking to quash the order of suspension passed against him. But this Court, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to review the said order of suspension having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.01.1996. But the Revenue Divisional Officer declined to review the said order of suspension. Subsequently, after charge sheet was laid in the criminal case, Mr.Subramani gave representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem to re-consider the order of suspension. But, the same was not considered. Thereafter, Mr.Subramani filed W.P.No.5226 of 2008, before this Court seeking to quash the above orders. But this Court by order dated 28.02.2008, issued the following directions:- "Though the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the suspension order, the petitioner is atleast entitled to reconsideration of his prayer for review. The second respondent is directed to review the case of the petitioner as provided under the said Government Order dated 30.01.1996 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to give another representation to the second respondent along with a copy of this order." 4.Subsequent to the above direction issued by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.319/2007 (A1) dated 12.03.2008, has re-considered the matter and has reinstated the said Mr.A.Subramani in service thereby revoking the order of suspension. 5.In view of the above development, now the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, similar benefit may be given to the petitioner also and he may be reinstated in service. He would further submit that when the main accused in the criminal case has been given such indulgence, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should also been given similar benefit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would however oppose. He would submit that since the petitioner was arrested in the trap and since A.Subramani was not arrested during trap, the case of the petitioner cannot be treated par with the case of the said Subramani. Therefore, according to him, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner does not require any interference. 7.In my considered opinion, the said argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- A perusal of the records would go to show that the demand for bribe was allegedly made only by the Village Administrative Officer namely, A.Subramani and according to the case, as per the directions of Mr.A.Subramani, the bribe money was handed over to the petitioner and at that time, it was alleged that the petitioner was arrested. The Village Administrative Officer also came into police custody later. Now the petitioner and the said A.Subramani are facing the trial in the same criminal case before the Special Court. When both are accused in the same criminal case and when especially, the charge is graver in nature against the Village Administrative Officer, there cannot be any differential treatment given to the petitioner and what weighed in the mind of the Revenue Divisional Officer to revoke the suspension order of the Village Administrative Officer should weigh in the mind of the Tahsildar also in the matter of suspension of the petitioner. When the materials are more or less same, when the Revenue Divisional Officer has thought it necessary to revoke the order of suspension as against Mr.A.Subramani, hardly, I can find any reason as to why the order of suspension of the petitioner should not be revoked. 8.In general, in matters of suspension, this Court does not interfere, as the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. But at the same time, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that on considering certain materials, the suspension order of one person has been revoked, I cannot find a different reason when the same materials are placed before me so as to refuse to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 9.For a moment, I am not prepared to accept the the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.40 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.01.1996, compels the authorities to revoke the order of suspension on completion of six months period of such suspension. The said Government Order is not applicable where the suspension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is made because of the pendency of the criminal case against the public servant. This order I have passed only on the ground that the Village Administrative Officer who is the main accused in the criminal case has been given benefit of getting the suspension order revoked. 10.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension passed by the respondent in Roc No.752/2007/A1 dated 10.01.2007 is quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. jbm Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To : The Tahsildar, Salem District. 1 cc to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, SR.42545 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR.42283 ssv (co) dv/13.8. W.P.No.3406 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/