Petitioner, a Divisional Officer suspended for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought reinstatement. The court dismissed the writ petition rejecting reinstatement where a charge sheet has been laid.
Writ petition for certiorari and mandamus to reinstate petitioner dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.10075 OF 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
T.Selvaraja .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Director Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services No.1, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in relation to the proceedings in Home (Police-XVII) Department G.O.Ms.No.323 dt 20.05.2013, and the consequential order in Letter No.60283/pol-17/2014-5 dated 02.03.2015 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Addl.Govt. Pleader
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioner was working as Divisional Officer in Kanyakumari Division in Fire & Rescue Services. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.323 Home (Police-XVII) Department dated 20.05.2014 under Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, placing the petitioner under suspension. The reason for suspension is that a case registered against the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of a criminal offence for demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.30,000/- as bribe from one Thiru A.Arokkiaraj, for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is under investigation.
3.The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 30077 of 2013, to consider his representation dated 28.06.2013, to revoke the order of suspension imposed on him. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by an order 06.11.2013, directing the Government to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2013 and pass orders on merits and as per law, within a period of eight weeks. Since no order was passed, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.23192 of 2014 to quash the suspension order issued in G.O.Ms.No. 323 dated 20.5.2013, as stated above. At the time of hearing of that Writ Petition, a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.07.2014. Accordingly, this Court disposed of W.P.No.23192 of 2014, on 11.09.2014, directing the Government to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2014. Now two orders have been passed by the first respondent dated 02.05.2014 and 02.03.2015, in the said circumstances refusing to revoke the suspension, which are impugned in this Writ Petition.
4.Now it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after investigation, a charge sheet has been laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, for the offence under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
6.The petitioner was placed under suspension on a grave charge of demanding and accepting bribe and a case was registered under Prevention of Corruption Act and after completing the investigation a charge sheet has also been laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in such circumstances the Government though it fit not to revoke the suspension. In fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE CHAIRMAN, TNEB & ANOTHER v. S.VENKATESAN [(2014) 5 MLJ 769], after analying all the Judgments on this point , refused to interfere with the decision of the authorities in refusing to revoke the suspension, more particularly in the case relating to corruption charges. At this stage it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as follows:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attached to TANGEDCO, orders of suspension have been revoked and each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and in cases involving bribery and moral
turpitude, there cannot be any uniform guideline especially with regard to revoking the orders of suspension.
8.In view of the above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director
Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services
No.1, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
+1 cc to Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran, Advocate,SR.19434.
+1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.19675.
kv(co)
krd 29/4
W.P.No.10075 OF 2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public servant charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be reinstated or continue suspension when a charge sheet has been filed.
Whether prolonged suspension constitutes a ground for revoking suspension orders in corruption cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Chairman, TNEB & Another v. S. VenkatesanDistinguished¶17
THE CHAIRMAN, TNEB & ANOTHER v. S. VENKATESAN [(2014) 5 MLJ 769]
T. Selvaraja
State of Tamil Nadu
Director Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services
D. Hariparaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
