1. The order of suspension is under challenge. The petitioner, working as Village Administrative Officer, was arrested on 14.06.2013, during trap proceedings, for an alleged act of demanding and receiving bribe for issuing certificate to one R.Mariappan. The impugned order of suspension was issued on the next day i.e., on 15.06.2013, by invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

He is working as Village Administrative Officer. There was a dispute over the ownership of a tree between one Vijayan and Ayyavu. The said Ayyavu sold the tree to one Mariappan. On enquiry, he came to know that Vijayan is the real owner of the tree and thus, he directed the parties to settle the issue amicably and hand over the amount for cutting the tree to the owner Vijayan. Instead of handing over the money to Vijayan, the said Mariappan handed over the money to the petitioner to be given to the said Vijayan. At that time, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharmapuri arrested the petitioner as if he had received the amount from Mariappan, for issuing a Certificate and registered a case in Crime No.02/AC/13 for the offences alleged to have been committed under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2013 and remanded to the judicial custody. He was released on bail on 25.06.2013. In the meantime, on 15.06.2013, the respondent passed the impugned order of suspension. Since the impugned order of suspension was made on the very next day, the same is not sustainable, even before the lapse of 48 hours of imprisonment. No enquiry into grave charges are contemplated by the respondent. The impugned order was passed in a haste with non application of mind.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent wherein it is stated as follows:

A report has been received from the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharmapuri dated 15.06.2013 informing that on a complaint made by one R. Mariappan, a case in Crime No.02/AC/13 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 has been registered on 14.06.2013 at 12.00 hours against the petitioner herein and one M. Nanjappan, Village Assistant, for demanding of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for issuing certificate and a trap has been organised on 14.06.2013. Accordingly, during the trap proceedings, the petitioner demanded Rs.4,000/- and accepted it in the presence of Official witnesses. He additionally demanded Rs.1,000/-, which also was paid to the petitioner by the complainant. The entire amount of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the petitioner under the cover of mahazar witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner and the said Village Assistant were arrested on 14.06.2013 and remanded to the judicial custody on the same day. On receipt of the said report, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 15.06.2013, under Rule 17(e) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner was lodged at Sub Jail from 14.06.2013 to 25.06.2013 i.e., for more than 48 hours. Therefore, the suspension order is in accordance with the Rules.

4. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:

The impugned order of suspension is passed without reference to the amendment made to Rule 17(e) as per G.O.Ms. No. 29, P& AR(N) Department dated 23.2.2012 whereby the expression "an enquiry into grave charges" is deleted and the expression "a disciplinary proceedings" is substituted. The suspension order reads as though an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated. Thus, the impugned order is not supported by the Statutory Rules. Only after 48 hours of detention in prison, the suspension order can be passed even under clause (2) of Rule 17(e). But in this case, on the very next day of arrest, the suspension order is passed and therefore, the same is not sustainable even as per clause (2) of Rule 17(e). No