SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 544

FAIZAN UDDIN, S.B.MAJMUDAR, K.T.THOMAS, K.RAMASWAMY, S.P.BHARUCHA
Secretary To Government – Appellant
Versus
K. Munniappan – Respondent


ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, made on June 25, 1996 in OA No. 6457/95.

4. The respondent, before being superannuated, was served with a suspension order which reads as under :

"Whereas an enquiry into grave criminal offence against Thiru K. Muniappan. Divisional Engineer (National Highways), Salem now at Paramkudi Highways and Rural Works Division is contemplated."

5. The respondent challenged the said order in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order has stated that Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules does not empower the appellant to suspend the respondent pending such an enquiry and, therefore, the action taken was illegal. The question is: whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? Rule 17(e)(1) reads as under :

"(e)(1) A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service, where

(i) an enquiry into grave charge against him is contemplated, or is pending; or

(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation of trial and if





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top