1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.320 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Alagammal : Appellant Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary cum Director, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, Chennai 106. 2.The District Siddha Medical Officer, District Siddha Medical Office, Government Hospital, Madurai & Theni, at Periyakulam, Theni District. 3.The Block Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, T.Kallupatty, Madurai District. : 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.1223 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.285/Ni/9 dated 16.11.2009 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Hospital Worker in the third respondent Hospital. For Appellant : Mr.K.Mahendran 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.1223 of 2010, wherein the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of suspension passed against the appellant by the second respondent. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant, who is employed as a Siddha Hospital Worker, was placed under suspension until further orders by the second respondent on 16.11.2009 on the ground that she was arrested on 19.10.2009 by the Inspector of Police and remanded to judicial custody. The said order of suspension was passed under Rule 17(2)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. After investigation, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.488 of 2009 against the appellant and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. 3. The appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.1223 of 2010 seeking to quash the order of suspension. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 22.11.2010, dismissed the said Writ Petition. Challenging the said order dated 22.11.2010, the appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. 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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 subordinate." 6. It is an admitted case that the appellant, who is a Siddha Hospital Worker, is involved in a criminal case and charge sheet is pending. 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. 7. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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. 8. 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 can be placed under suspension till he is exonerated and she can claim only subsistence allowance. 9. 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, she has no right to seek revocation of the suspension order. 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 is facing criminal case. After the final report is filed in Crime No.488 of 2009, the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 Judicial Magistrate, Melur, is directed to commit the proceedings to the Sessions Court, and thereafter, the Sessions Court is directed to commence the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the order dated 22.11.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.1223 of 2010 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary cum Director, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, Chennai 106. 2.The District Siddha Medical Officer, District Siddha Medical Office, Government Hospital, Madurai & Theni, at Periyakulam, Theni District. 3.The Block Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, T.Kallupatty, Madurai District. +One Cc to Mr.K.Mahendran, Advocate, SR.No.11639 +One CC to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.11586 NB rl/6c – 22.3.2011 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.320 of 2011 04.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/