Madras High Court
The Deputy Inspector General Of Police vs S. Govindaraj on 23 November, 2011
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, R. Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23 - 11 - 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH W.A. No. 566 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Coimbatore Range Coimbatore .. Appellant Vs. S. Govindaraj .. Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, AGP For Respondent: Mr. K. Venkataramani, SC for M/s M. Muthappan Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.8.2009 in W.P. No. 15723 of 2009. JUDGMENT
(Delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.8.2009 made in W.P. No. 15723 of 2009, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, has filed the present appeal.
2. While the respondent was serving as Head Constable attached to Tiruppur South P.S., he was kept under suspension under Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 [for short, "Rules"] by proceedings of the appellant dated 06.9.2006 on the ground of his involvement in a Criminal Case in Coimbatore V & AC Crime No. 16/AC/2006/CB filed under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against him was that he collected bribe from the complainant one Ponnuswamy, for return of his vehicle. After making a detailed representation and requesting for revocation of suspension, the first respondent / writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 3424 of 2007 challenging the order of suspension and this court, by order dated 03.02.2007, issued a direction directing the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for revoking the suspension order. Since his request was rejected, again he filed W.P. No. 9865 of 2008 wherein this Court directed the authority to review the order of suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the directions issued by this Court, his request for revocation of suspension was not considered by the authority favourably. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant, he filed the above Writ Petition.
3. Before the learned Judge, it transpires, the appellant did not file any counter. Notice was ordered to the appellant. The learned single Judge, who heard the matter elaborately, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 27.8.2009 and quashed the impugned order of suspension. It is against this order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. When the Writ Appeal came up for admission, this Court, by order dated 28.3.2011, granted interim stay of the order of the learned single Judge and it was made absolute by order dated 20.9.2011.
5. Heard Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the appellant and Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader representing the appellant submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, a Government servant facing criminal case has to continue under suspension. It is also her submission that if the respondent, who was arrested red handed for the act of acceptance of bribe, is released from suspension and allowed to rejoin duty, the Government's objective of maintaining probity in public administration will be belittled and that it would not only affect the morale of others in service but also would act as disincentive for the public servants, who are committed to honest conduct in public service. Finally, she submitted that as per the guidelines issued under Chapter VI of Hand Book on office Administration, when a charge sheet is filed against a Government servant who was under suspension and it has been taken cognizance of the Court and the matter is under trial, the question of revocation of suspension pending disposal of the trial by the Court does not arise. She submitted that quashing of the order of suspension by the learned single Judge is unsustainable in law as the misconduct committed by the respondent was serious in nature. On these grounds, she sought for interference of this Court.
7. On the contrary, Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant. On the other hand, he submitted that there is a specific allegation in the First Information Report that it is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from the complainant for return of his vehicle and in the absence of any specific allegation in the FIR, the trap alleged against the respondent is only a mock trap, which, according to the learned Senior Counsel, cannot be sustained. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that keeping an employee under prolonged suspension is violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is perfectly in accordance with law and as such, it does not warrant any sort of interference.
8. From the materials produced, it is seen that the respondent has been kept under suspension for the last five years and though investigation is already over and charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore even as early as on 02.3.2008 and taken on file in Spl. C.C. No. 7 of 2008, no progress has been made in the trial except examining P.W.1, who sanctioned the prosecution against the respondent, which shows that it will take considerable time to complete the criminal trial. Therefore, we are of the view that continued suspension of the respondent is not necessary during the trial of the criminal case.
9. Further, it is not in dispute that the name of the respondent does not find place in the First Information Report nor is there any specific allegation against the respondent. On the other hand, there is a specific allegation in the FIR only against the Sub-Inspector of Police.
10. Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules provides for revocation of suspension and it reads as follows:-
"An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate."
11. In the case on hand, admittedly, there is no allegation against the respondent with regard to the alleged corruption charge. It is pertinent to note that after a period of six months from the date of suspension, the employee has to be paid 75% of the salary by way of Subsistence Allowance. In this case, the respondent has been kept under prolonged suspension for a period of nearly 5 years with salary in the form of Subsistence Allowance without extracting any work from him, which is nothing but wasting of Government money. On the other hand, applying Rule 3(e)(5) of the Rules, pending trial of the Criminal Case, the suspension of the respondent shall be revoked and as rightly held by the learned single Judge, he can be posted in a far away place in a non-sensitive post and some work could be extracted from him for the salary paid to him. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting our interference.
For the reasons stated supra, we have no hesitation to confirm the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(E.D.R., J.) (RP.S., J.) 23 - 11 2011 Index : Yes Website : Yes gri ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
AND R. SUBBIAH, J.
gri W.A. No. 566 of 2011 23 - 11 2011