1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9984 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Perinbam : Petitioner Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai. : 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 of the respondent relating to R.O.C.No.6326/2011/A, dated 23.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue as Village Administrative Officer and the respondent may be given liberty to proceed against the petitioner by framing suitable charges under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, within a specified time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader ORDER The impugned order of suspension dated 23.08.2011 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai reads as follows: "Whereas an information has been received from the Collector, Madurai in Roc.No.53162/2011/G1, dated 12.08.2011 that Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk, one Tmt.Revathi has given a complaint against Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk that he has made an agreement to sell the property in S.No.28/3 having an extent of 0.30 acre by getting an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from her. When she has given a notice to him from her advocate he has also given a notice from his advocate. In that notice, it has been mentioned that he has acted as broker to purchase a property to the petitioner and her husband and thereby a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 by him as commission. Being a Government servant, Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, has violated the conditions laid down in Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973 and got a power of attorney and executed a gift deed to his daughter. In the enquiry conducted by the Special Deputy Collector (SSS), Madurai revealed that Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer has acted as a broker to purchase and sell the property and thereby he violated the rules laid down in the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973. And whereas in the circumstances of the case and in the public interest, it is necessary to place the said Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk under suspension from service. Now, therefore, under of rule 17(e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the said Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk, is placed under suspension from service with effect from 23.08.2011 Afternoon until further orders. 2. During the period of suspension, the said Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk will be paid Subsistence Allowance and Dearness Allowance admissible under F.R.53(1). 3. The Head quarters of the said Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk, during the period of suspension shall be Mangalgudi Village and the said Thiru.K.Perinbam, Village Administrative Officer, Mangalgudi Village, Madurai North Taluk should not leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned." 2. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973, the said allegations do not warrant an extreme step of suspension and an order of suspension can be made only if the retention of the employee is scandalous or he would tamper with the evidence, pending enquiry. In support the abovesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in T.Chandrakala v. Block Development Officer/Commissioner reported in 2011(3) MLJ 540. The learned counsel further submitted that if there was any serious allegation against the Government servant, it is always open to the disciplinary/appointing authority to enquire into the allegation and if any prima facie case is made out, a charge memorandum under Rule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 17(a) or 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, may be issued, depending upon the gravity of the allegation, instead of suspending the employee. It is also his contention that even assuming that the petitioner has received commission for private negotiation for purchase of the property, that does not warrant suspension and no public interest is involved. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. Perusal of the impugned order of suspension shows that one Tmt.Revathi has made a complaint against the petitioner that he has made an agreement to sell the property in Survey No.28/3, having an extent of 0.30 acre by getting an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- from her. According to her, the petitioner has acted as a broker to purchase a property, by taking Rs.1,00,000/- as commission, which is construed as a violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973, by the authority, who placed the petitioner under suspension. Reliance made on the judgment of this Court in T.Chandrakala's case cited supra, cannot be countenanced, for the reason, that in the abovesaid reported case, the irregularities noticed by the Inspecting Officer, were not so grave in nature and in such circumstances, this Court at paragraph No.17, has passed the following orders: "Though in the normal course, this Court would not go into the merits of the case to find out as to whether there is any necessity to place an employee under suspension for the reason that it is the prerogative of the employer to temporarily suspend the relationship of master and servant, yet on the facts of this case and having regard to the nature of minor irregularities and considering the plight of the writ petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to place the petitioner under suspension." 5. In the above reported case, the irregularities noticed by the Inspecting Officer, the P.A. to the District Collector, were as follows: (i) 50 students were fed after taking food materials for 60 students. (ii) Sambar was not prepared. (iii) There was a shortage of 1 kg of Rice and 0.5 ml of Oil and there was an excess of 0.575 of dhal. (iv) Noon meal Centre was not properly maintained. (v) The egg shells were not removed before distribution. 6. Going through the impugned order, it cannot be said that receiving commission for private negotiation for purchase of property on behalf of the complainant and her husband, is a minor irregularity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 and that no public interest is involved, in placing the petitioner under suspension. The contention that the petitioner would not tamper with the evidence and, therefore, he should be reinstated in service also, cannot be countenanced at all, as held in the abovesaid judgment that it is the prerogative of the employer to place the Government servant under suspension, depending upon the gravity of the allegations. 7. Whether the act alleged would in anyway affect the functions of the Village Administrative Officer, is not the criteria for arriving at a prima facie conclusion to place a Government servant under suspension. If the act constitutes misconduct that it is suffice to place a Government servant under suspension, then the same cannot be found fault with, unless it is tainted with mala fide, lack of jurisdiction or in contravention of statutory rules. Public interest has to be considered only with reference to the nature of allegations. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no public interest. 8. In view of the averments made in the supporting affidavit, the competent authority may seek for explanation from the petitioner on the allegations and if the explanation is not satisfactory, frame appropriate charges under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and proceed under the abovesaid rules. 9. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, the Writ Petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai. SML akm/09.09.11 /4p-2c/ Order made in W.P.(MD).No.9984 of 2011 Dated:- 06.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/