1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.6064 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Kannaiya : Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Tanjavoor District, Tanjavoor. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Tajavoor District. 3.The Revenue Tahsildar, Peravoorani, Tanjoor District. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned suspension order in Na.Ka.No.2027/2007/A1, dated 27.05.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all attendant benefits. For petitioner : Mrs.Srimathy For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Govt. Pleader ORDER Being aggrieved by the order of placing the petitioner under suspension, by order, dated 27.05.2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjavoor, by exercising power under Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same and consequently, prayed for reinstatement. 2.According to him, he had reported to the Revenue Tahsildar, Peravoorani, Tanjoor District, to allot a person to assist him for carrying books and also made a request by registered post, stating that the Village Assistant had not attended duty for the past five months. In addition to the above, according to the petitioner, he is a differently abled person and unable to carry books. As no one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 was appointed, the petitioner was constrained to send a letter, dated 18.05.2011 through registered post. Despite the above-said request, there was no response. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to do election work also. As the workload was heavy and with his disability, he could not carry on the work. On 27.05.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Tanjavoor District, conducted Jamabandhi. In the above-said proceedings, and called Arasilamkarambi Village employees and asked for accounts. The petitioner could not bring the books as no one was there to assist. 3.He also submitted that the Village Assistant had not turned-up for duty for the past five months. Though, the above said facts were brought to the notice of the District Revenue Officer, Pattukottai, without considering the same, the respondents 2 and 3 were instructed to suspend the petitioner immediately. However, on 28.05.2011, the petitioner had handed over the village accounts. 4.On the above-said pleadings and assailing the correctness form of the order of suspension, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension is in violation of Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as it does not reflect either contemplation of any enquiry into grave charges or pendency of charges. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to suspend an employee, there should be public interest and the power to suspend cannot be exercised, except for the reasons stated supra. It is her further contention that as none of the above stated facts are reflected in the impugned order, there is total non-application of mind, on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Puttukottai, Thanjavur District, in passing the impugned order. 5.Though, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, on the basis of the records, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that on 27.05.2011, when the Revenue authorities, conducted a Jamabandhi, the petitioner failed to produce the village records. According to him, on Jamabandhi day, the village accounts would be verified and suitable orders would be passed, on the petitions received. During the said proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the village account books relating to Arasilamkarambi village were not produced by the petitioner and therefore, there was a failure on the part of the writ petitioner to discharge his duties, warranting suspension. 6.Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that there are materials to place the petitioner under suspension and it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the powers have been exercised erroneously. According to him, departmental action is contemplated and therefore, interim suspension is justified and in the above-said circumstances, prayed for dismissal of the the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8.Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, reads as under:- "17(e)(1)A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where-- (i)an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending; or (ii)a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. (2)A Government servant who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under this rule. 9.Admittedly on 27.05.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattuktotai, has conducted Jamabandhi and even as per the averments of the writ petition, on that day, the village accounts and other books pertaining to Arasilamkarambi village were not produced. The reasons stated in supporting affidavit that the Village Assistant did not turn up the duty for the past five months and that, therefore, petitioner being a differently abled person could not carry the books cannot be countenanced, for the reason is that as a Village Administrative Officer, he is supposed to produce the village account books on the Jamabandhi day, when the public have attended the Jamabandhi day for redressal of their grievances. Even assuming that the petitioner was not provided with an assistant, he should have made necessary arrangements to produce the village account books, particularly, when the Village Assistant had not turned up for duty for many months. It is also to be noted that Jamabandhi date would be fixed, well in advance and failure to produce the records, would have caused administrative inconvenience. 10.However, the files produced before this court shows that departmental action has been taken by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2027/2007/A1, dated 27.05.2011 and charges have been directed to be framed and that, a charge memo was also directed to be served on the petitioner. As departmental proceedings have been directed to be taken, this court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exercise of the power under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, has been done in an arbitrary manner. Merely because, the words “public interest” is not stated in the impugned order, the same cannot be said to be bad in law, so long as the power has been exercised bonafide. No malafides have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 alleged and proved and there is no lack of jurisdiction. An order of suspension can be assailed only if it is contrary to rules, malafide or in the case of lack of jurisdiction. None of the above is substantiated. There is no manifest illegality or infirmity in the order of suspension. Nevertheless, the contention of the petitioner that on 28.05.2011, the entire village account books have been handed over, deserves consideration, as to whether retention of the petitioner under suspension is required or not. In view of the subsequent event, this court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Tanjavoor District, to consider as to whether pending further action, if any, the petitioner, who is a differently abled person should be kept under suspension or not, and take a decision at the earliest. It is to be noted that if a person has indulged in serious acts of misconduct, extension of suspension is required. But such entries should not be done in all the cases, where there are minor lapses or where, retention of the person in service would not be scandalous or where there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Therefore, the authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner. 11.With the above directions, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tanjavoor District, Tanjavoor. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, Tajavoor District. 3.The Revenue Tahsildar, Peravoorani, Tanjoor District. +1cc to Mr.S.M.S.JOHNNY BASHA Advocate, Sr.No.21906 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 22071 order in W.P.(MD).No.6064 of 2011 06.07.2011 ER SMA/22.7.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/