Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
C. Isaivani
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli
W.P.(MD).No. 11535 of 2014 & M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on: 22-09-2014
Suspension - Corruption Case - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was suspended due to her involvement in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She challenged the legality of the suspension orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the suspension, stating that a public servant charged with corruption should be kept away from office until absolved from criminal charges. The court emphasized the need to maintain purity in public administration and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the petitioner, charged with corruption, should be revoked.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the power of the employer to suspend an employee pending disciplinary proceedings, as established in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India and B.R.Patel v. State of Maharashtra. It emphasized that revoking suspension for employees charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act should not be a general practice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed. No costs were awarded.
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 10 August, 2012, suspending the petitioner from service and the consequential orders dated 25 February, 2013, and 21 February, 2014, on the file of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli, whereby and whereunder, her application for review of suspension was rejected.
THE FACTS:
2. While the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing laid a trap and she was arrested on 10 August, 2012. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2012 against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of her arrest and remand and involvement in a criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension, by proceedings dated 10 August, 2012. The petitioner submitted an application on 07 January, 2013, requesting the disciplinary authority to revoke the suspension. The request was rejected. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer filed a final report on 29 November, 2013, after completion of investigation and as such, there is no need to continue the suspension. The petitioner now challenges the legality and correctness of the orders dated 10 August, 2012, 25 February, 2013 and 21 February, 2014, on the file of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli.
SUBMISSIONS:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 02 July, 2012 in W.P.Nos.29195 of 2010, etc., batch, contended that this Court, under similar circumstances, revoked the suspension orders and directed the Department to post the officers in a non sensitive post. According to the learned counsel, the police have already laid the charge sheet and as such, there is no question of petitioner interfering with the process of investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to work anywhere in the State of Tamil Nadu and as such, a direction should be issued to revoke the suspension.
4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the criminal case registered against the petitioner is still pending and as such, there is no question of revoking the suspension at this point of time.
ANALYSIS:
5. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing laid a trap against the petitioner, on the basis of a complaint that she demanded illegal gratification. The petitioner was arrested on 10 August, 2012 and remanded to custody. The petitioner was suspended, vide proceedings dated 10 August, 2012. Her subsequent application for review was rejected by the respondent.
6. The petitioner is an accused in a corruption case. The petitioner now wanted this Court to exercise the power of judicial review and to decide as to whether the respondent was correct in passing the impugned orders.
7. The petitioner was suspended on account of her involvement in a corruption case. A public servant, who is charged of corruption, in ordinary circumstances, should be kept away from the office, until he/she is absolved from criminal charges. The fact that the trial of the criminal case would be delayed further by itself would not be a ground for revoking suspension. In case a police officer, who is involved in a corruption case, is allowed to rejoin duty by revoking suspension, it would impair the morale of other employees.
8. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] made it very clear that the appointing authority is entitled to suspend the employee pending departmental enquiry. The observation reads thus:
THE LAW:
"11. The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an enquiry into his conduct and the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term in the contract relating to suspension and payment during such suspension or if there
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.