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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 812

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
K. Selvamani
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Home Secretary, Fort St. George, & Another
W.P. No. 21014 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2013
Decided On : 08-04-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.C. Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Nithyaesh Natraj, Advocate. For the Respondents:P.H. Aravind Pandian, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by A. Kumar, Special Govt. Pleader.

The discretionary power conferred on the disciplinary authority to pass an order of suspension and the legal principles governing the interference with suspension orders based on prima facie mala fide intentions.

Headnote:

Suspension - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - G.O. (2D).No.208 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 17(e)(i) & (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and their discretionary application in cases of suspension. The court also referred to the judgment in 1995 Supplementary (2) SCC 145 (State of U.P. Vs Viswanath Prasad) and 2013 (1) SCC 524 (Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and others) to establish the legal principles governing the interference with suspension orders based on prima facie mala fide intentions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was suspended from service following allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, alleging mala fide intentions on the part of the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in suspending the Sub-Inspector of Police and the contradictory stands taken by the respondents did not establish mala fide intentions. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation for revocation of the suspension order and reinstatement in a non-sensitive post at a far away place after the filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case.

Issues: The issues revolved around the mala fide intention behind the suspension order, the discretionary application of Rule 17(e)(i) & (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the delay in suspending the Sub-Inspector of Police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in suspending the Sub-Inspector of Police and the contradictory stands taken by the respondents did not establish mala fide intentions. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation for revocation of the suspension order and reinstatement in a non-sensitive post at a far away place after the filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case.

Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation for revocation of the suspension order and reinstatement in a non-sensitive post at a far away place after the filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case.

Judgment :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to G.O. (2D).No.208 [Home (Pol.2) Department], dated 27.07.2012, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows;

(a) The petitioner herein has joined the Tamil Nadu Police force in the year 1987 as Sub Inspector of Police (Category I) and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1998 and served in various police stations in Chennai till 2011. On 07.02.2010, he was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 29.02.2012 he was posted as DSP at Lalkudi Sub Division. While so, the petitioner found that the investigation in respect of two murder cases were not properly conducted in the manner known to law by the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police at Lalkudi Station and there were several latches. Hence, the petitioner was, after reporting the same to the Superintendent of Police, asked for explanation from the concerned Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police at Lalgudi Police Station. This annoyed the Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police and created hatred feeling about the petitioner in their minds.

(b) In the first week of July, 2012, the petitioner has received a current paper from the Special Branch Office, Tiruchirapalli, in Na.Ka.No.336/SB/TRI/2012 in the first week of July, directing the petitioner to verify certain particulars about one Alpha Educational Charitable Trust which is run by one Rajamanickam, who had submitted a paper for registering the trust under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. The petitioner, thereafter, sent the current paper to the Inspector of Police, Lalkudi, for conducting personal enquiry, but the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi, in turn, deputed Sub Inspector of Police – Chandramohan to verify the details. The Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi, had sent a report stating favourably about Alpha Educational Charitable Trust. But, the petitioner, dissatisfying with the same, returned the same with certain queries in the 2nd Week of July, 2012. On 18.07.2012, at 6.00 p.m. when the petitioner was at Samayapuram Police Station, the said Rajamanickam came and met the petitioner stating that the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Station directed him to meet the petitioner to clarify the queries made by him. At that time, the petitioner directed the said Rajamanickam to meet the Sub Inspector of Police, as he has returned the papers to the Sub Inspector of Police Chandramohan with certain queries. However, the said Rajamanickam wanted the petitioner to submit a favourable report without those documents, because it will take time for him to submit those documents. But, the petitioner refused the same.

(c) On 19.07.2012 when the petitioner went to District Police Office, Tiruchirapalli, at about 2.30 p.m. the said Rajamanickam on seeing the petitioner stood up and told him that he has come to see him regarding his application. The petitioner asked him to wait and went to change his dress. At this juncture, two persons introducing themselves as Vigilance and Anti-corruption Deputy Superintendent of Police, Silambarasan and Inspector of Police, Ramachandran, informed the petitioner as if the petitioner has received bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from the said Rajamanickam to submit a favourable report. This allegation was vehemently denied by the petitioner, but they refused to listen the petitioner. Then, the said Rajamanickam, pointing out to some files on the petitioner's table, told them that he had kept money in between those files. They forced the petitioner to touch the money, but the petitioner refused to do so. No one other than the Vigilance Police personnel and the said Rajamanickam were present in the Office room. After some time, they brought the Sub Inspector Chandramohan at Lalgudi in his uniform. The

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top