N. Paul Vasathakumar, J.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of suspension dated 28. 2008.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Copyist in the Judicial Ministerial Service on 20.3.1985 and she was posted as Serishtadar Assistant in the Sub-Court, Sankari, on 111. 2000 and served in the said post till 20.6.2005. On 27. 2004, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, received an information from the Typist of the Sub-Court, Salem, that the Court fees stamp papers are missing from the case bundle, in which she was typing the decree. The learned Sub-Judge, on instruction from the Principal District Judge, Salem, inquired into the matter and found that the Court fees stamp papers to the value of Rs.3,27,782.25ps were found missing from various case bundles of that Court. The learned Judge, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to ten staff members of that Court. Proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the then Serishtadar and others. The learned Sub Judge, on 2. 2006, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. The charge alleged against the petitioner reads as follows:

"You, Smt. M. Rajambal, while working as Serishtadar Assistant, in Sub Court, Sankari, on receipt of the court fee stamp papers filed along with the plaint for registering the same in Register No.19 after initialing on the same by Serishtadar, you failed to count and calculate the value of the court fee stamp and record the same in the register. Thus, you failed to perform your duty. This act of you amounts an offence under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Conduct and Appeal) Rules."

The petitioner submitted explanation for the said charge memo on 24. 2006 and denied the charge.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, sent a report to the Principal District Judge, Salem. As per the directions given by the Registry of this Court, the learned Principal District Judge addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter and take action against the culprits involved and to recover the stamp papers.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Salem, directed registration of First Information Report, pursuant to which Crime No.38/2004 was registered by the District Crime Branch, Salem. After investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, gave a report on 28. 2008 wherein the petitioners involvement was prima facie found. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28. 2008. The petitioner apprehending arrest, filed an anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.21936 of 2008 before this Court and this Court on 9. 2008 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on condition to report before the respondent Police daily. The said condition was relaxed on 210. 2008.

5. The said order of suspension is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioners name was not mentioned in the First Information Report registered in crime No.38 of 2004 and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners name is not stated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his report dated 28. 2008 about her involvement and prayed for setting aside of the suspension order.

6. We have considered the facts pleaded as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the respondent.

7. It is seen from the suspension order that a complaint has been lodged by the Principal District Judge, Salem, to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, on 11. 2004 as directed by this Court in the Official Memorandum, for investigation of the theft of Court fees stamp papers in the Sub-Court, Sankari, to the tune of Rs.3,27,782.25ps, which was registered by the District Crime Branch, Salem, on 11. 2004 in Crime No.38/2004 under Section 409 and 380 I.P.C. and the same is pending investigation. The Dep