Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Perusal of the judgment shows that reliance has been placed on a decision in N.Deenadayalan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, reported in 1988 (2) MLJ 25, wherein, a learned single Judge while explaining the words "enquiry pending" and "enquiry under contemplation", at paragraphs 6, 7, 11 and 12, held as follows:-

6. Sathiadev, J., in S. Vasudevan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep., By Its Secretary, Home Department W.P. Nos. 304, 390 of 1982, order dated 7.12.1982, dealt with a case under Rule 17(a)(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules, where a servant was placed under suspension, pending further enquiry into grave charges against him. The learned Judge found that at the time of the passing of the impugned order of suspension there only a charge memorandum had been issued and the enquiry was yet to begin and hence no enquiry was pending against the servant relating to grave charges against him, as claimed in the impugned order of suspension. An attempt was made on behalf of the authorities to state that the impugned order of suspension must be read to mean an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated against the petitioner so as to sustain it within the language of Rule 17(a)(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules. The learned Judge repelled the argument put forth on behalf of the authorities in the following terms:

The said judgment makes it very clear that unless otherwise the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and an enquiry into the same is pending, a Government servant cannot be placed under suspension. In the case on hand, as stated already, it is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and the same is pending against the petitioner."

26. Perusal of the judgments in Dr.B.Karanchandra Mohan Prasath vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (4) CTC 608 and R.Jeyadoss Gabriel vs. Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CD II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 458, shows that the learned Judge who decided Dr.B.Karanchandra Mohan Prasath's case, has followed the judgment in N.Deenadayalan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, reported in 1988 (2) MLJ 25. The said judgement has been rendered on 25.02.1988. Subsequently, the very same issue, as to whether a Government Servant can be placed under suspension pending contemplation of enquiry into grave charges, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.Uthirakumaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1988 (9) WLR 229. The main contention of the appellant therein was that under rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, suspension can be invoked only when specific charges have already been framed or not under contemplation.

33. From the above, it is manifestly evident that the Hon'ble Division Bench in D.Uthirakumaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1988 (9) WLR 229, has overruled the decision in N.Deenadayalan vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, reported in 1988 (2) MLJ 25.

34. It is unfortunate that an overruled decision of this Court in the year 1988 has been relied on by the petitioner in Dr.B.Karanchandra Mohan Prasath vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (4) CTC 608, which resulted in quashing of an order of suspension, pending contemplation of an enquiry into grave charges. While quashing the order of suspension therein, the learned Judge has also relied on a decision in D.R.P.Sundharam vs. Canara Bank, rep. by its Executive Director, reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 113, decided by another learned Judge on the same issue. Dr.B.Karanchandra Mohan Prasath's case has been followed in R.Jeyadoss Gabriel vs. Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CD II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 458.

(iii) In W.A.No.1818 of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Jeevanantham vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and others considered an identical issue and confirmed the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, which was filed challenging the order of suspension.
(iv) Suspension orders were also upheld in the case of D.Gnanasekaran v.

Chief Educational Officer reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 457 and in the case of S.Jeyasingh Rajan v. President, Kalloorani Panchayat reported in 2006 (4) MLJ