1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.5638 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Raman .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Chinna Chokkikulam, Lady Doak College Road, Kamala Street, Madurai. 2.S.Shenbagamoorthy The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Chinna Chokkikulam, Lady Doak College Road, Kamala Street, Madurai. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent in his proceedings in No.E/2342/2011, dated 03.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with al attendant benefits with continuity of service. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for R-1 ORDER The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order of suspension, dated 03.05.2011. The suspension was made on the ground of unauthorised leave as well as receiving money from the another ranger. 2.The contention raised by the petitioner was that suspension is unauthorised and it was done with a view to taking revenge on the petitioner. The allegation that he received Rs.25000/- was not believable as he has no power to receive any amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered and an interim stay was granted till 10.06.2011. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (June, 2011). The counter affidavit sets out various allegations made against the petitioner. It was also informed that the petitioner should approach the department for reviewing the suspension. 4.This court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. The Supreme Court had held that unless malafide is attributed to the Government and established, the Court cannot interdict an order of suspension, vide its judgment in A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India reported in (1969) 3 SCC 864. The following passages found in paragraphs 7 and 10 may be usefully reproduced below: “7..... The appellant contended that the appellant was not suspended under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7. That is a contention. The facts are that there was an investigation and the trial is awaiting relating to a criminal charge against the appellant. The order of suspension has to be read in the context of the entire case and combination or circumstances. This order indicates that the Government applied its mind to the allegations, the enquiries and the circumstances of the case. The appellant has failed to establish that the Government acted mala fide. There is no allegation against any particular officer of the Government of India about acting mala fide..... 10..... We are not concerned with the correctness and the propriety of the report. We have only to examine whether the order of suspension was warranted by the rule and also whether it was in honest exercise of powers.....” 5.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Chinna Chokkikulam, Lady Doak College Road, Kamala Street,Madurai +One CC to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.40375 vvk rl/3 c- 1.12.2011 W.P.(MD)No.5638 of 2011 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/