BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/12/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Appeal (MD) No.661 of 2010 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 V.Murugan . . Appellant vs. 1.The Superintendent Engineer, Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. 2.The Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. . . Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order, dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.7865 of 2010. !For Appellant ... Mr.K.Vellaiswamy ^For respondents ... Mr.V.Panneerselvam :JUDGMENT
T.RAJA, J.
The present writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the prayer of the appellant.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single
Judge, while serving as a Junior Engineer-Grade I in the respondent Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, was placed under suspension in public interest by order dated
24.04.2010, for the reason that he was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Police and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.11/2010 under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the case was under
investigation, the respondent department thought fit to place him under
suspension and accordingly, he was placed under suspension by order dated
24.04.2010 by the Superintendent Engineer.
4. The said order of suspension was challenged on the sole ground that
when the Regulation 12 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee’s Discipline
and Appeal Regulations, specifically provides the competent authority to pass
the suspension pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, as the
impugned order of suspension was not issued by the competent authority as
specified by Regulations 12, on the contrary, the Appellate Authority has passed
the suspension order, the same is liable to be quashed and consequently, the
appellant is entitled to restore in his service.
5. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s contention placing
reliance under Regulations 6(b) and 9(a), which is extracted as under:-
“6(b) Competency of authorities superior to disciplinary authority:
Where in any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a
penalty under this regulation, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to
proceed under this regulation in respect of the case.
c) The fact that a lower authority has imposed or declined to impose a
penalty in any case shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his
jurisdiction under this regulation in respect of the same case.
d) The order of a higher authority imposing or declining to impose in any
case a penalty under this regulation shall supersede any order passed by a lower
authority in respect of the same case.
e) The fact that a lower authority has dropped a charge against a person
as not proved shall not debar a higher authority from reviving it for reasons to
be recorded in writing and taking suitable action on the charge so revivied.
Regulation 9(a), (b) and (e) of the TNEB Employees Discipline and Appeal
Regulations:
9(a): a member of a class of service may be placed under suspension from
service, where (I) an enquiry into grave charges against him contemplated, or is
pending, or (ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under
investigation or trial and if such suspension if necessary in the public
interest.
9(b): An employee 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 regulation.
9(e): An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this
regulation 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.
A plain reading of the above said rules, do not find any fault with the
impugned order. Under Regulation 9(a) of the TNEB Employees (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, an employee can be placed under suspension in public interest if
there is a complaint pending against him for any criminal offence under
investigation. Since in the present case, the appellant was arrested by the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and a criminal case was registered in Crime
No.11/2010 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the
reason that the said case is under investigation, there is no legal bar in
placing the appellant under suspension, since the lower authority will have no
jurisdiction to proceed in this case any further.
6. When the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued before the
learned Single Judge stating that the appellant can be suspended only by the
competent authority and not by any other persons including the appellate
authority on the basis of the principles that if an Act obliges the authority to
act in a particular manner, then it can be done only in that manner and not in
any other manner. While dealing with the said submission, the learned Single
Judge referring to Regulations 9(a) and (b) and 8(g) has finally come to the
conclusion that as per the said Regulations, if the disciplinary action itself
can be initiated by an officer in superior rank, then the said officer can place
an employee under suspension. Further, in the present case, the suspension is a
deemed suspension in view of the fact that the appellant has been kept under
custody beyond 48 hours, therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the order
placing the appellant under suspension by the appellate authority/Superintending
Engineer, does not suffer any illegality.
7. Finally, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that as per
the Regulations, if the disciplinary action itself can be initiated by an
officer in superior rank, it goes without saying that the said officer can also
place an employee under suspension. In view of the Apex Court decision in the
case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. N.Ramanaiah reported in
2009 (7) SCC 165, the appellant can always appeal to the higher authority other
than the first respondent or even to the first respondent by making appropriate
review of suspension, but certainly for grave charges under which the appellant
was placed under suspension, he cannot be restored to service pending
finalization of the criminal case registered against him.
8. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present case
filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected MP(MD)No.1 of 2010 is closed.
rkm
To
1.The Superintendent Engineer,
Madurai Metro Electricity Distribution Circle,
K.Pudur,
Madurai – 7.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Madurai Region,
K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.