M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The official respondents in W.P.No.3616/ 2011 are the appellants and aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2012 made in the said writ petition, which was disposed of along with other writ petitions in a batch of cases, wherein order of suspension came to be passed against the first respondent herein/writ petitioner came to be set aside with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition that they are at liberty to post the writ petitioners in a far away place from the station of occurrence and post them in a non-sensitive post and if for any reason, the authorities are of the opinion that their continuance in service is a hindrance for the action initiated them, they can re-examine the issue and they are at liberty to take appropriate action, had filed this writ appeal.

2. The first respondent/writ petitioner joined the services of then Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), now Tamil Nadu Generation of Electricity and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO) as Junior Engineer/Electrical Grade-II, vide order dated 28.03.1995 issued by the first appellant. According to him, every since from the date of his appointment, he has been discharging his duties honestly and sincerely and is having unblemished record. According to the writ petitioner, one Murugan from Velacherry, a civil contractor, had given a false complaint against him on the file of the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), as if he has demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for fixing a meter for the new connection obtained by him and it was subsequently reduced to a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner would further state that he did not oblige him and therefore, the said person threatened him with dire consequences and thereafter, lodged the above said false complaint, which resulted in a alleged trap and the first respondent/writ petitioner was arrested and kept in custody for 3 days and as the period of custody exceeded 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent/second appellant herein, vide order dated 10.11.2008.

3. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though the criminal case, after investigation, has culminated into a charge sheet, which was taken on file in C.C.No.12/2009 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, no progress took place in respect of the case and the first respondent/writ petitioner is kept under suspension for more than 5 years and though he submitted number of representations for revoking the order of suspension, it was not done so and therefore, came forward to file this writ petition praying for quashment of the impugned order of suspension dated 10.11.2008, with a direction to restore him back to work as Junior Engineer with backwages and other attendant benefits.

4. The learned Judge has taken up this writ petition along with batch of writ petitions wherein orders of suspension have been passed against the officials belonging to Police, TANGEDGO and other departments, which have been revoked/reviewed, vide common order dated 02.07.2012, by taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.01.1996 and found that no progress has been made after placing the concerned individuals under suspension and instead keeping them under suspension and paying them subsistence allowance which may be more than 75% of the emoluments, felt that keeping them idle and paying 75% of the salary by way of subsistence allowance, by transferring them from far away place and posting them in a non-sensitive post after extracting work, would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, disposed of all the writ petitions including W.P.No.3616/2011 filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the official respondents had filed these writ appeals.

5. Ms. R. Varalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that admittedly the first respondent/writ petitioner was trapped while recei