1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.310 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 N.Rajagopal Head Constable (under suspension) : Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein in C.No.H3/707/2010/(D.No.37/2010) dated 07.01.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his service with back wages, service benefits and continuity of service. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnadoss For Respondent : Mr.R.Manoharan Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 07.01.2010 on the file of the respondent, whereby and whereunder he was suspended from service on account of his involvement in a case charged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The petitioner was working as a Head Constable and he was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing on 06.01.2010 on complaint that he demanded bribe from a candidate, who made an application for issuing passport. This resulted in registering a case in crime No.1 of 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per the impugned order dated 07.01.2010. 3. According to the petitioner, the investigation is still pending and the charge sheet has not been filed so far. In the said circumstances, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order of suspension. 4. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is involved in a corruption case and as such, there is no question of revoking his order of suspension. 5. There is no dispute that a case in Crime No.1 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner on account of his arrest on 06.01.2010 relating to a case of illegal gratification. 6. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner was subsequently suspended as per the impugned order dated 07.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7. The question regarding review of suspension is a matter to be considered by the respondent in accordance with the Service Regulations. In case the Service Regulations provide for review of suspension in the case of those employees, who were charged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the duty of the respondent to review the suspension. Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served by directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for review, in case the Service Regulations provide for such review. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. +1 CC to Mr. K.P.Krishnadoss, Advocate, SR.No.1439 +1 CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.1792 SML Order made in W.P.(MD)No.310 of 2011 12.01.2011 TR : 03.02.2011 : 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/