1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.212 of 2011 K.Shanmugam : Appellant / Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Settlement, Trichy 1. 3.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Karur. 4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aaravakurichi, Karur District. : Respondents/ Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.2108 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.2108 of 2010 Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.A2/6167/09 dated 07.10.2009 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for reinstatement in service. For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy 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 against the order dated 22.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.2108 of 2010, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of suspension passed against the appellant by the third respondent. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant, who is employed as a Senior Draftsman, was placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 under suspension until further orders by the third respondent on 09.01.2008 on the ground that he was arrested on 08.01.2008 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Trichy, for demanding and accepting bribe. The amount said to have been demanded and accepted as bribe by the appellant is Rs.750/-. The said order of suspension was passed under Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. After investigation, the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department laid a charge sheet against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur and the same was taken on file in Special C.C.No.3 of 2008. The said case is pending trial. 3. The appellant earlier filed W.P.(MD).No.8516 of 2008 seeking to quash the order of suspension. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 08.04.2008, while disposing of the said Writ Petition directed the appellant to submit a representation to the third respondent herein seeking to review the order of suspension and on receipt of such representation from the appellant, the third respondent was directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order dated 08.04.2008, the second respondent herein passed an order on 07.10.2009, refusing to revoke the order of suspension passed against the appellant. 4. Challenging the said order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the second respondent, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.2108 of 2010 seeking to quash the order of suspension. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 22.11.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said order dated 22.11.2010, the appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal. 5. The contention raised in the Writ Appeal is that the suspension order, having been issued on 09.01.2009, is bound to be set aside since the trial in Special C.C.No.3 of 2008, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, in respect of the criminal case pending against the appellant. is not disposed of and the prolonged suspension is bad in law. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. For proper appreciation, it is desirable to extract Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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. (3)Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4)Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government Servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court of law has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. (5)Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings are commenced or any other criminal complaint is under investigation or trial against him during the continuance of that suspension, and where the suspension of the Government servant is necessary in public interest as required under clause (1), the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings including departmental proceedings taken on the basis of facts which led to the conviction in a Criminal Court. (6)An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 subordinate." 8. It is an admitted case that the appellant, who is a Senior Draftsman, is involved in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption case and charge sheet is pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the competent Criminal Court and the case is under trial in Special C.C.No.3 of 2008, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. A person, who is facing criminal charge, 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 revocation of suspension as a matter of right. 9. 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 grounds. (i). Another 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 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. (ii). 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. (iii). 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. 10. The Supreme Court in the decision in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 458 held that corruption in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 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." 11. 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; 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. 12. 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 bribery case, he has no right to seek revocation of the suspension order, merely because the criminal trial is pending for more than three years. The second respondent passed orders rejecting the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order. 13. 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 and who is facing criminal trial in Special C.C.No.3 of 2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 14. We are conscious of the fact that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has already given administrative instructions to all the High Courts to ensure that cases in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be fast tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis both at the High Court and District levels. Since the appellant is facing criminal case and charge sheet was also filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as stated supra and having regard to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, as aforesaid, we direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, to complete the trial in Special C.C.No.3 of 2008 and dispose of the same before the end of August 2011 and send a report regarding disposal of the said criminal case to the Registry of this Court before 9th September 2011. 15. In the result, the order dated 23.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No.12065 of 2009 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur 2.The Principal Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Settlement, Trichy 1. 4.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Karur. 5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aaravakurichi, Karur District. Copy to: The Section Officer, Writ Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.9453 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 9352 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.212 of 2011 21.02.2011 NB SMA/04.03.2011/9C/6P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/