1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(md).No.8347 of 2011 Pushpam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Chellampatti Panchayat Union, Chellampatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1400/2011/A4 dated 01.07.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thangamani For respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of suspension issued by the Commissioner, Chellampatti Panchayat Union, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District made on the ground that the petitioner has been arrested in a criminal case. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 26.05.2011 in Cr.No.119 of 2011 under Sections 420 and 506(i) of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner acted only as a mediator for obtaining the loan amount and that she has not committed any offence. Investigation is already over and charge-sheet is likely to be filed. He also submitted that the petitioner's reinstatement as a noon meal organiser in Government Kallar Middle School, Kuppanampatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District would not in any way affect the trial. In view of the above stated reasons, the petitioner seeks for a writ of Certiorari. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused materials on record. 4.Whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not is a matter for investigation. The fact that the petitioner has been arrested on 26.05.2011, pursuant to the registration of Cr.No.119/2011 under Sections 420 and 506(i) of the I.P.C is not disputed. Law does not restrict the powers of appointing/ disciplinary authority in placing a person under suspension just because the offence arose out of a civil transaction i.e money transaction. What is relevant for consideration is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 whether the employee is facing trial or any investigation is pending. Though it may be a point for consideration that for trivial offences, suspension need not be invoked, but in the case on hand, the offences alleged against the writ petitioner are under Sections 420 and 506(i) of the I.P.C. It is also well settled that omission to mention the word, public interest, in the order of suspension would not invalidate the said order, so long as the authority who has passed an order of suspension, is incompetent to do so. The order of suspension reflects application of mind to the facts, warranting the same. Considering the above aspects, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest error in placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence the impugned order is sustained. 5.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Commissioner, Chellampatti Panchayat Union, Chellampatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.25222 vs W.P.(MD).No.8347 of 2011 AND MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.07.2011 TR : 11.08.2011 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/