Dismissed

C.Ramasundaram, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC13 Feb 2014WP/24953/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a suspension order passed against a Village Administrative Officer arrested in a trap case. The court held that though the order cited incorrect grounds regarding 'grave charges', it was valid under Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) as a criminal case was under investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits. Connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

C.Ramasundaram, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Corruption | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.24593 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

C.Ramasundaram ...Petitioner
..vs..
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri. ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the
records relating to the order of suspension passed in
Roc.No.3910/2013/A1 dated 15.06.2013 on the file of the respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mr.M.L.Mahendran
Government Advocate
O R D E R

¶8

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.

¶9

2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶10

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ received the amount from Mariappan, for issuing a Certificate and

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner so far, except issuing the impugned order.

¶16

5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted as follows:

¶17

The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2013 and kept in prison for 48 hours and released only on 25.06.2013. Therefore, the proceedings are in accordance with law. The disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

¶18

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this court.

¶19

7.The point for consideration in this case is as to whether the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law.

¶20

8.The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension was not passed in accordance with the Rules. In order to appreciate the said contention, let me extract Rule 17 (e) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the impugned order of suspension as follows.

¶21

9.The relevant portion of Rule 17(e) of the said Rules is extracted hereunder: 17(e)(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service where*(i) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending or (ii) a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (vide G.O.Ms.No.29, P&AR(N) Department, dated 23.2.2011)

¶22

(2) A Government servant who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under the rule."

¶23

10.The impugned order of suspension is extracted hereunder: "Roc.No.3910/2013/A1 Dated 15.06.2013

¶24

ORDER OF SUSPENSION UNDER RULE 17(e) OF THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES

¶25

WHEREAS Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk was trapped and arrested on 14.06.2013 in the presence of Official witnesses of Dharmapuri Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.

¶26

AND WHEREAS enquiry into grave charges against Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk is contemplated.

¶27

AND whereas in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in the public interest to place the said Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk under suspension from service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

NOW therefore, under sub rule (e) of rule 17 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules the said Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk is with immediate effect placed under suspension from service until further orders.

¶29

2.During the period of suspension, the said Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk will be paid subsistence allowance and dearness allowance as admissible under Fundamental Rule 53(1).

¶30

3.The Head quarters of the said Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk, during the period of suspension will be at Dharmapuri and he shall not leave the head quarters without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned."

¶31

11.For an alleged act of demanding and accepting bribe for issuing a certificate, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 14.06.2013 in Crime No.02/AC/13 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989. The suspension order was passed against the petitioner on 15.06.2013. No doubt, Rule 17(e)(2) contemplates a deemed suspension only when a Government servant is detained in custody for a period longer than 48 hours. In this case, a perusal of the impugned order of suspension would show that the same was not passed under Rule 17(e) (2) as a deemed suspension. It is true that the arrest of the petitioner on 14.06.2013 is referred to in the impugned order. But at the same time, it is not stated anywhere that the same is issued by invoking Rule 17(e)(2) as a deemed suspension. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this aspect is liable to be rejected, since the suspension order was not passed under Rule 17(e)(2).

¶32

12.No doubt, it is true that the impugned suspension order referred as though an enquiry into grave charges, against the petitioner, is contemplated. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sub Rule (i) of Rule 17(e)(1) has been amended with effect from 23.02.2012 and accordingly, the expression "an enquiry into grave charges" is deleted and in that place, the expression "a disciplinary proceedings" is substituted. It is clear that only when a disciplinary proceedings is contemplated, the suspension order can be issued by invoking Rule 17(e)(1)(i) of the said Rules. Therefore, a suspension order, on the contemplation of enquiry into grave charges, cannot be issued after such amendment. But at the same time, it is to be seen that the impugned order was not issued solely by invoking Rule 17(e)(1)(i). On the other hand, it can be seen that the same would fit in under Sub clause (ii) of Rule 17(e)(1), wherein the suspension can be issued where a case against the petitioner in respect of criminal offence is under investigation or enquiry or trial. At the risk of repetition, let me reiterate the first paragraph of the suspension order as hereunder:

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

"WHEREAS Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk was trapped and arrested on 14.06.2013 in the presence of Official witnesses of Dharmapuri Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.

¶35

AND WHEREAS enquiry into grave charges against Thiru. C. Ramasundaram, Village Administrative Officer, Vellegoundanpalayam village, Dharmapuri Taluk is contemplated.

¶36

13.Thus, from the averments made in the first paragraph of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2013 in a trap proceedings by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in the presence of the Official witnesses. Thus, it goes without saying that the case against him in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation or enquiry. When that being the factual position supported by the Statutory Rules, more particularly, Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of the said Rules, I am of the view that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is a trap case. The petitioner was arrested and kept in prison for about 11 days. It is well settled that this court will not normally interfere with an order of suspension, unless there is a flagrant violation of law. In my considered view, there is no violation of law as contended by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AD-I) Dated : 18.02.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vri To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri. 1 CC to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.6633 1 CC to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.6882 W.P. No.24953 of 2013 BKY (CO) PSI (19/02/2014)

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Ramasundaram, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramasundaram, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Velu Vs the District Collector

Rukhiya Vs 1.REGISTRAR,APPELLATE Tribunal

Medical Council of India Vs the Registrar/Returning

D.Gnanasekaran Vs the Principal Chief

N.Subramaniam, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

T.Rajasekar Vs the Commissioner