BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12/12/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.10221 of 2007 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2007 T. Gunasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai Taluk, Pattukkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension in ref.Na.Ka.2121/2007 a.1, dated 18.10.2007 of the respondent and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Mohamed Asif, for Mr.R.Vijayakumar ^ :ORDER
Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order of suspension dated
18.10.2007 passed against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as
follows:
(a) Petitioner is working as Village Administrative Officer of
Seruvaviduthi Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. He was issued
with a charge memo dated 14.5.2007 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that he had abstained from duty
from 3.5.2007 onwards without obtaining proper leave and in view of his absence
on 7.5.2007, final list of voters could not be completed. It is further alleged
therein that the petitioner was insubordinate to the higher officers and he had
not properly recovered the taxes to the tune of Rs.10,240/-.
(b) Petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.5.2007 contending that it
is not correct to state that he was unauthorisedly absent on those dates; that
the allegation of insubordination is vague; that he had already recovered the
taxes to the tune of Rs.10,240/- and deposited the same in the State Bank of
India, Pattukkottai; and that the said accounts have also been audited by the
respondent and hence the charge memo does not have any basis.
(c) Petitioner states that without considering the said explanation, the
respondent issued the impugned suspension order alleging that the petitioner had
not informed the office about the fire accident that took place on 11.10.2007
and that he did not appeared for enquiry on 15.10.2007. It is further alleged
in the order of suspension that an FIR has been registered against the
petitioner in crime No.83 of 2007 on the file of Thiruchitrambalam Police
Station under sections 341, 323, 506(ii) IPC.
(d) Petitioner submitted a representation on 26.10.2007 stating that he
had immediately informed about the fire accident on 11.10.2007 and compensation
was paid to the victim on 12.10.2007 by the Tahsildar. With regard to the
allegation that on 15.10.2007 he had not appeared for the enquiry, he explained
that he did not receive any notice for the enquiry. In respect of the criminal
case, petitioner states that the FIR was lodged by one Chinnathambi, who is none
other than the close relative of the petitioner, due to personal animosity with
regard to property dispute between them.
(e) Stating the above reasons, petitioner has filed the present writ
petition to quash the Hence, this writ petition to quash the suspension order.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. The point in issue is whether the suspension order passed against
the petitioner is justified or not.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Government servant, bound by the
Government Servants’ Conduct Rules and he can be proceeded under the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Petitioner’s involvement in the
criminal case and the pendency of criminal case against him are not in dispute.
6. Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules empowers the disciplinary authority to place a Government servant on
suspension, on his involvement in criminal case, either during investigation or
pending framing of charges or pending trial. The said power has been exercised
by the first respondent on public interest. Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows:
“Rule 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 or any criminal offence is under investigation or
trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.”
A Division Bench of this Court considered Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in W.A.No.1114 of 2007 and by Judgment
dated 5.11.2007 upheld the order of suspension pending investigation/trial of
criminal offence.
7. The power of the department to place an officer under suspension, on
public interest, pending enquiry into the disciplinary proceeding/criminal
investigation/trial, is well settled.
(a) The Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court
1342 (Hotel Imperial Vs. Hotel Workers’ Union) in paragraph 10 held thus,
“10. The first question therefore that falls for consideration is the
extent of the power of the employer to suspend an employee under the ordinary
law of master and servant. It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in
the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an
ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be
the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term
in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either
as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute
would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if
he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to
pay wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however, there is
power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the
rules framed thereunder, the suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending
the relation of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not
bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. These principles of
the ordinary law of master and servant are well settled and have not been
disputed before us by either party. Reference in this connection may be made to
Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd., 1915-1 KB 698, Wallwork v. Fielding, 1922-2
KB 66, Secretary of State v. Surendra Nath, ILR (1939) 1 Cal 46: (AIR 1938 Cal
759) and Rura Ram v. Divisional Superintendent, N.W.Railway, ILR 1954-7 Punj
415: (AIR 1954 Punj 298).”
(b) Again in the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 787 (R.P.Kapur v.
Union of India), the Supreme Court held that the authority entitled to appoint a
public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending departmental enquiry
into his conduct or pending criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in
departmental enquiry against him.
(c) In AIR 1968 SC 800 (B.R.Patel v. State of Maharashtra) a question
arose as to whether a person, who was placed under suspension pending further
orders due to pendency of criminal case, gets automatically restored into the
service if the criminal case ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court held that
even after the acquittal, a fresh order revoking the order of suspension should
be passed by the department and there is no automatic revocation of suspension
arises.
8. In the case on hand, petitioner, who is a Government Servant, was
suspended due to his involvement in criminal case in Cr.No.83 of 2007 on the
file of Thiruchitrambalam Police Station. When a criminal case is pending
against the petitioner and the suspension order having been passed in exercise
of powers conferred under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on public interest, no exception could be taken
to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the petitioner.
9. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in
limine. This order will not preclude the petitioner from seeking revocation of
the order of suspension before the competent authority and if any such
application is filed, it is for the respondent to consider the same on its own
merits and in accordance with law. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed.
vr
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pattukkottai Taluk, Pattukkottai.