1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.82 of 2011 C.Muthukrishnan : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai 600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. : Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No.11378 of 2010 on the file of this Court. WP.No.11378 of 2010 presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in R.C.No.024014-(2)/13/2010 dated 02.08.2010 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same further directing the respondents to resinstate the Petitioner with all service benefits. For Appellant : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondents : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] This Writ Appeal is directed as against the order dated 17.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.11378 of 2010, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of suspension passed against the appellant. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant, who is employed as an Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, was placed under suspension with effect from 02.08.2010 until further orders by the first respondent on 02.08.2010 on the ground that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-. For https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the said allegation, a case in Crime No.16 of 2010 was registered as against the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 30.07.2010 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai. The said order of suspension was passed under Rule 17(e)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Challenging the said order of suspension, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.11378 of 2010 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all service benefits. 3. The learned Single Judge, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after referring to an order of this Court in R.Ravichandran, v. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai and others rendered in W.P.(MD). No.12590 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010, by order dated 17.09.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said order dated 17.09.2010, the appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal. 4. The contention raised in the Writ Appeal is that the appellant was not apprehended by the police and the claim of the de facto complainant in Crime No.16 of 2010 cannot come within the jurisdiction of the appellant. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. For proper appreciation, it is desirable to extract Rule 17(e)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows:- "a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest." 7. It is an admitted case that the appellant, who is employed as an Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, is involved in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption case. A person, who is facing criminal charge/criminal investigation 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 the revocation of suspension as a matter of right. 8. In W.A.No.1114 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007 also, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 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. 9. 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." 10. 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; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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 suspension till he is exonerated and he can claim only subsistence allowance. 11. 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 appellant is involved in criminal case, that too, in a bribe case, he has no right to seek revocation of the suspension order. 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 appellant, who indulged in corrupt practices. 12. In the result, the order dated 17.09.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.11378 of 2010 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed in limine. However, after the final report is filed in Crime No.16 of 2010, it is open to the appellant 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 appellant by the authority concerned, the appellant has to wait till he is exonerated finally. It is made clear that if subsistence allowance is not paid, the respondents are directed to pay subsistence allowance to the appellant during the period in which he is kept under suspension. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai 600 006. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. +One Cc to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.2594 NB rl/4c – 24.2.2011 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.82 of 2011 21.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/