1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7080 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 V.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul 2. The District Supply Officer Dindigul ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension of the first respondent in ref.Roc.No. 7614/2011/A1 dated 25.02.2011 with retrospective effect as illegal and the consequent impugned order of the first respondent in ref.Na.Ka.No. 7614/2011/A1 dated 28.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to treat the period of suspension as duty with all monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Padmaavathi Devi For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader ORDER Challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order, dated 28.05.2011 of the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, rejecting the request of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. 2. Pleadings disclose that when the petitioner was serving as Deputy Tahsildar in Natham Taluk, on 24.02.2011 about 6.45 p.m., he was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption on the allegation that he had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from a co-employee Thiru Gandhi Kumar, for making endorsement for change of address, in his ration card. An FIR has also been registered in Crime No. 3 of 2011 and consequently, the petitioner has been arrested and produced before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. Pursuant to the above, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption has requested the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, the first respondent herein, to place the petitioner under suspension and accordingly, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, vide proceedings dated 25.02.2011, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 19.03.2011 to the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, Stating that the co-employee had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner to meet out an urgent family necessity. Subsequently, a complaint had been lodged alleging that the petitioner had demanded bribe. Since the petitioner was under suspension for quite some time, he was constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 5284 of 2011, challenging the same. However, when the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seemed to have submitted that the representation, dated 19.03.2011 addressed to the first respondent, be considered. 3. Recording the said submission, a direction has been issued to the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, to consider the abovesaid representation, which resulted in the rejection and thus came to be challenged in the present Writ Petition. 4. The impugned order of suspension, dated 25.02.2011 reads as follows:- "Whereas it has been brought to the notice that Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer (Deputy Tahsildar), Taluk Office, Natham demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 24.02.2011 for issuing certificate for changing of residential address in the ration card of Thiru.A.Gandhikumar. At the time of receiving bribe amount he was trapped and arrested at 18.45 hours on 24.02.2011 in Taluk Office Complex, Natham by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul. 2) Whereas an enquiry into grave charges against Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer, Taluk Office, Natham, Dindigul District is contemplated. 3) Whereas in the circumstances of the above case it is necessary in the public interest to place the said Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer (Deputy Tahsildr) Natham Taluk under suspension from service with effect from 24.02.2011 A.N. 4) Now, therefore, under Sub-Rule (e) of Rule 17 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the said Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer, Natham is placed under suspension from service with effect from 24.02.2011 A.N., until further orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5) During the period of suspension, the said Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer, Natham, Dindigul District will be paid subsistence allowance and dearness allowance admissible under F.R.53(1). 6) The headquarters of the said Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, Taluk Supply Officer, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District during the period of suspension shall be at Dindigul and the said Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the authority concerned." 5. The contentions that the co-employee had earlier borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner to meet out an urgent family necessity and that when a complaint was lodged against the said employee, he had arranged for a trap, as if the petitioner had demanded Rs.10,000/- for an endorsement for change of address in his ration card, are matter for investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, and therefore, this Court cannot render any finding, when the investigation is taken by the police. 6. Reading of the impugned order shows that at the time of receiving bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 20.04.2011, the petitioner has been trapped and arrested at 18.45 hours on 20.04.2011 in Taluk Office Complex, Natham, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul. The question as to whether a Government Servant who has been suspended, on an allegation of demand and receipt of bribe has been extensively considered by this Court in R.Ravichandran v. Addl. Commr. Of Police, Chennai reported in 2010 CIJ 553 IPJ, wherein, at Paragraphs 86 to 89, held as follows: "78. Corruption is forbidden by law, an offence involving moral turpitude or exactly opposite of dishonesty involving intentional disregard to law. When the misconduct of the government servant attracts criminal liability, for which, penal laws provide for severe punishments, like sentencing to rigorous imprisonment, the period depending upon the gravity of the offence, like in the instant case, imprisonment for a maximum period of 7 years, besides fine or both, it should be left to the absolute discretion of the appointing/disciplinary authority/government to place a government servant under suspension, pending investigation/trial. Persons involved in serious charges of corruption, embezzlement, misappropriation of government funds or crimes attracting severe punishments cannot be equated with others, discharging their duties honestly. Courts should not obstruct the powers of the appointing/disciplinary, authority/government, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 from forbidding such persons from discharging their duties, atleast till the trial is over. In M.K.Dange v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gaz Corporation reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 34, has held that even after acquittal, suspension does not automatically come to an end, until the order is revoked by the authorities. 79. The object of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the purpose of empowering the authorities to place the government servant, under suspension, pending investigation or trial, of criminal offences, involving corruption and other grave offences, involving moral turpitude, should not be defeated by restoring them in service. It should be noted that persons with criminal antecedents are not even inducted in service. They are prevented entry into government servant and police verification of antecedents helps the employer for this purpose. While that be the settled position, a government servant, after entering into service, faces trial for grave offences, should be kept out of the sphere of activities, with reference to discharge of duties and privileges attached to the post, pending trial. The provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the powers conferred on the authorities to place him under suspension are intended to maintain clear administration and in public interest and in such circumstances, there is no question of considering the private interest, of the government servant, which is temporarily deprived of his duties. 80. No Government servant, particularly a person charged with a misconduct of corruption, has right to insist that he should be retained in service and allowed to discharge his duties and enjoy the privileges of the post held by him, during the pendency of the enquiry into grave charges or trial, involving moral turpitude and it is the absolute discretion of the appointing/disciplinary authority or the Government to suspend such government servant from discharging the duties attached to the post and to forbid him from exercising the privileges, except to the extent of payment of salary, regulated in the Statute or rules, applicable to the case of such Government servant. 81. For the purpose of suspension, it is sufficient that the competent authority has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the Government servant has committed a serious misconduct, which entails major penalties, like dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, etc., from service. Illustrative cases, where action has to be taken immediately, are persons, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 involving in serious acts of misdemeanor, such as, (a) offence or conduct involving moral turpitude, (b) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, (c) possession of disproportionate assets, (d) misuse of official powers for personal gain, (e) serious negligence or dereliction of duty, (f) desertion of duty and (g) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers; (h) apprehension of tampering with witnesses or documents or likelihood of causing prejudice to an inquiry, investigation or trial; (j) likelihood of subversion of discipline in office; (k) involvement of scandals, and (l) likelihood of ultimate conviction out of departmental proceedings, and in all these illustrative cases, it is the matter of necessity and public interest, involved and therefore, it which must be left to the absolute discretion of the competent authority, with whom, the power is vested to suspend and that such discretion exercised in public interest should not be interfered with lightly. 82. When the criminality of the government servant is adjudicated before the Court of competent jurisdiction and when the Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department has launched prosecution or proposed to launch for imposing appropriate punishment under the penal laws, the appointing/disciplinary authority/government, should be allowed to exercise their discretion to place the government servant under suspension, which is a step in aid, to complete the investigation/trial. Courts have consistently held that even if the materials are not adequate for prosecution or even after acquittal, when the appointing/disciplinary authority/government is empowered to place the government servant under suspension, the power can be exercised on proper consideration of relevant materials, in public interest. 83. Once the objective consideration of the allegations, the material on record, warrants suspension, till the completion of enquiry or trial, in public interest, it is not for this Court to examine the nature of the allegations, the evidence and to record any finding thereon, which would hamper the progress of the departmental enquiry or investigation or trial against the government servant. 84. No doubt, the exercise of discretion, should be rational, should not be arbitrary and that there is also a legal duty cast upon the appointing/disciplinary authority/Government to apply its mind before exercising such discretionary power. However, when the government servant against whom, an enquiry into grave charges or an investigation into an offence or trial is pending and such charge/charges, involves moral https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 turpitude, then the competent authority can exercise his discretionary power under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and place the government servant under suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges under contemplation into charges/enquiry into formulated charges/investigation/trial. 85. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the observations of Lord Denning, as found in Wade on Administrative Law, “The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means atleast this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted is good faith, nevertheless the decision will be set aside." 86. The duty of the Court is restricted only to the limited extent to see that where the appointing/disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the nature of the charge, its complexity, the public interest involved in retaining the government servant, against whom, serious imputation of corruption, misappropriation, embezzlement, etc., are levelled and whether retention of such person, would be scandalous to the department or sub-serve the discipline in the department or affect the morale of other government servants. 87. The appointing/disciplinary, authority / government is entitled to exercise the control and maintain the master and servant relationship. To suspend an employee, as an interim measure for anyone of the reasons stated supra, which are illustrative, is the absolute right of an employer and no employee can insist that he must be allowed to be retained in service and discharge his duties and enjoy the fruits or privileges attached to the post. While testing the correctness of the order of suspension, all that has to be seen by the Court is whether the power of the appointing/disciplinary authority, in controlling the employees, has been exercised reasonably, without any mala fide and that there should not be any lack of jurisdiction. Any action taken by the appointing/disciplinary authority, in public interest to maintain a clean and honest administration, cannot be interfered with lightly. Even though the government servant is put to mental agony, it is only to the limited extent of restricting him from discharging his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 duties and enjoy other privileges attached to the post and it is only an interim measure, till he is cleared off of the imputations levelled against him. The suspension cannot be attacked on the ground that the facts stated therein are not correct. It is well settled that the High Court cannot delve into the factual details, while adjudicating the correctness of an administrative order. 88. The order of suspension for a misconduct, involving moral turpitude, in the instant case, alleged act of corruption and the further order, refusing to revoke the order of suspension, both being discretionary and administrative in nature, should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Allowing a person charged with serious acts of corruption or any other misconduct, involving moral turpitude, to discharge his duties and enjoy the fruits of the post, would be against a public policy and it would not be in public interest or to maintain a clean and effective administration. 89. Cases involving serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of money, certainly involve moral turpitude, where there is implied depravity and villiness of character. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, by allowing a government servant, facing serious charges of corruption or misappropriation or embezzlement, etc., to be retained in service, public interest would be affected. Allowing such persons to be retained in service, in my view, would give a signal to the erring government servants that if the trial is not taken up, for sometime, then the order of suspension would be revoked automatically. A person charged with a serious offence of corruption, for which, punishment may even extend to 10 years, cannot at any stretch of imagination, be inducted or retained in the department, pending disposal of the trial, as the very conduct, reputation of the person is questionable. 90. In the case on hand, powers exercised in good faith and for legitimate reasons in public interest and social interest and to effectuate the purpose for which it is conferred on the authorities, cannot be said to have been exercised arbitrarily. Courts being the custodian of law should not interfere with the orders of suspension, in the case of corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of government money and retention of such persons would pollute and contaminate the department. The effect of retention of such persons in service, pending trial would demoralise the other government servants, frustrate the object of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the action of the respondent, in keeping https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 such government servant away from the sphere of his activities, no matter whether the trial is prolonged for a considerable time, cannot clothe any right to seek for retention in service. Though Courts are designated exclusively for the purpose of dealing with corruption cases, for so many reasons, sometimes not bona fide, they are delayed. No doubt, pendency of the trial for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, causes agony and humiliation, but it is always open to the government servant to approach the Court, seeking for early disposal of the trial. 91. It is the responsibility of the appointing/disciplinary, authority/government to take into consideration that other employees/servants of the department are not de-moralised and restoring the services of such person, in service, would be certainly deleterious to the efficiency of others. Powers exercised by the appointing/disciplinary authority in rejecting the request, cannot be said to be arbitrary. The appointing/disciplinary authority/government has to maintain honesty, good conduct, efficiency in administration and to keep away persons, facing serious charges." 7. Following the above decision, this Court, by an order, dated 01.11.2010, has dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.10882 of 2009, etc., and the relevant portions of the above order made by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, are extracted hereunder: "15.Before proceeding to deal with the main case, it is seen from records that in this batch of writ petitions, in most of the writ petitions, interim stay has been granted on identical grounds . In that a reference was made to the judgment of this court in The State of Madras Vs. K.A.Joseph reported in AIR 1970 Madras 155. In that case, the respondent Joseph was placed under suspension pending contemplation of enquiry. Since suspension lasted for more than 10 months, he moved this court. This Court directed that charges should be framed within three months and if that was not done, he can again approach the court for redress. When no charges were framed by the competent authority, he filed another writ petition. This court while entertaining that writ petition, by an interim order revoked the suspension order. 16.An appeal was filed by the State in W.A.No.45 of 1969. The appeal was finally disposed of by a division bench of this court which came to be reported as AIR 1970 Madras 155. The short order contained only three paragraphs. In paragraph 1, the court dealt with the facts of the case, which is as follows: “.... It is sufficient for us to observe that a period of nearly ten months had elapsed since the Officer was first placed under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 suspension, and that, on an earlier representation, the Court directed that charges should be framed within three months, and that, if that was not done, the petitioner could approach the Court, again for redress, and, the outcome is the order from which the writ appeal is sought to be filed.” 17.Repelling the objections raised by the State regarding the power of judicial review over such order, in paragraph 2, it was observed as follows: “2....On the contrary, in our view there is a very clear and distinct principle of natural justice, that an Officer is entitled to ask, if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct, that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence, and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time.....” 18.When the Government Pleader in that case expressed his difficulty about the embarrassment if the Government servant resumed duty in the same place, the court moulded the relief in the following manner: “3.... The learned Government Pleader submits that there may be great difficulty in permitting the Officer to resume duties in the very post, when the performance of those duties by him in the past, had led to the imputation of grave irregularities, we are unable to see any real difficulty in the matter. We clarify the position by stating that it is open to the Government to permit the Officer to resume duty in that identical post, or, any post of equal grade and emoluments, which may be available for making an order of resumption of duty.” 19.It can be seen from the above case that there was initial disobedience of the order passed by this court in not framing the charges. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked. There was objection for restoration of service on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the suspension which was rejected. Thirdly when the embarrassment of restoration of a Government servant facing serious charges to the very same place was made, the court also directed his being posted to some other post in the very same status and salary. 20. From a reading of the very short judgment, it is clearly seen that the court was only concerned about the delay in framing of charges by the department. It did not deal with any case involving criminal prosecution that too on corruption charges. Secondly, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 the court gave an opportunity to the respondent to frame charges and not to be merely contended keeping a person under suspension. When that was not forthcoming and the order of the court was violated, the court revoked the suspension order, but also took care in granting liberty to the Government to post that person in some other place." 8. In view of the settled legal decision, this court is not inclined to accept the contention of the writ petitioner made in paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit and it is a matter for evidence before the Vigilance police. 9. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed for suspension. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul 2. The District Supply Officer Dindigul vsg akm/19.07.11 /10p-3c/ W.P.(MD).No.7080 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/