Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4550
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
The Deputy Inspector General of Police Coimbatore Range
Versus
S. Govindaraj
W.A. No. 566 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 23-11-2011
For the Appellant: M.E. Raniselvam, AGP.
For the Respondent:K. Venkataramani, SC for M/s M. Muthappan, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to consider revocation of suspension when there are no specific allegations against the employee and the trial is prolonged, in accordance with the provisions of the disciplinary rules.
Headnote:
Suspension - Revocation of Suspension - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Head Constable, was suspended under Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent filed multiple writ petitions challenging the suspension order, claiming that his request for revocation of suspension was not considered despite court directions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had been under prolonged suspension for nearly 5 years without any progress in the criminal trial. It held that there was no specific allegation against the respondent in the First Information Report and that the continued suspension was unnecessary during the trial. The court also noted the provision for revocation of suspension under Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules and ruled in favor of revoking the suspension and posting the respondent in a non-sensitive post.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the prolonged suspension, the necessity of continued suspension during the trial, and the revocation of suspension under Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of specific allegations against the respondent, the prolonged duration of suspension without progress in the trial, and the provision for revocation of suspension under Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, confirming the order of the learned single Judge to revoke the suspension and post the respondent in a non-sensitive post. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.8.2009 made in W.P. No. 15723 of 2009, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, has filed the present appeal.
2. While the respondent was serving as Head Constable attached to Tiruppur South P.S., he was kept under suspension under Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 [for short, "Rules"] by proceedings of the appellant dated 06.9.2006 on the ground of his involvement in a Criminal Case in Coimbatore V & AC Crime No. 16/AC/2006/CB filed under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against him was that he collected bribe from the complainant one Ponnuswamy, for return of his vehicle. After making a detailed representation and requesting for revocation of suspension, the first respondent / writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 3424 of 2007 challenging the order of suspension and this court, by order dated 03.02.2007, issued a direction directing the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for revoking the suspension order. Since his request was rejected, again he filed W.P. No. 9865 of 2008 wherein this Court directed the authority to review the order of suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the directions issued by this Court, his request for revocation of suspension was not considered by the authority favourably. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant, he filed the above Writ Petition.
3. Before the learned Judge, it transpires, the appellant did not file any counter. Notice was ordered to the appellant. The learned single Judge, who heard the matter elaborately, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 27.8.2009 and quashed the impugned order of suspension. It is against this order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. When the Writ Appeal came up for admission, this Court, by order dated 28.3.2011, granted interim stay of the order of the learned single Judge and it was made absolute by order dated 20.9.2011.
5. Heard Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the appellant and Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader representing the appellant submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, a Government servant facing criminal case has to continue under suspension. It is also her submission that if the respondent, who was arrested red handed for the act of acceptance of bribe, is released from suspension and allowed to rejoin duty, the Governments objective of maintaining probity in public administration will be belittled and that it would not only affect the morale of others in service but also would act as disincentive for the public servants, who are committed to honest conduct in public service. Finally, she submitted that as per the guidelines issued under Chapter VI of Hand Book on office Administration, when a charge sheet is filed against a Government servant who was under suspension and it has been taken cognizance of the Court and the matter is under trial, the question of revocation of suspension pending disposal of the trial by the Court does not arise. She submitted that quashing of the order of suspension by the learned single Judge is unsustainable in law as the misconduct committed by the respondent was serious in nature. On these grounds, she sought for interference of this Court.
7. On the contrary, Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant. On the other hand, he submitted that there is a specific allegation in the First Information Report that it is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/-from the complainant for return of his vehicle and
