Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delinquent employee was suspended by the order dated 26.7.2019 when he was caught red-handed accepting bribe. A criminal case was registered against him on 26.7.2019. Looking to the serious allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and the writ petitioner/non-appellant having been caught red-handed, he was placed under suspension and the representation to recall the order of suspension was not accepted looking to the gravity and seriousness of the allegation.
9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
10. The writ appeal has been filed to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the order of suspension has been set aside. It is a case where the writ petitioner/non-appellant was placed under suspension by the order dated 26.7.2019. It was with registration of a criminal case on the same day for commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in the year 2018. The allegation against the delinquent was of ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis demand and acceptance of bribe. He was caught red-handed and, accordingly, an FIR was registered against him immediately thereupon. He subsequently made a representation for revocation of the order of suspension, but the same was rejected by the appellants by their order dated 17.4.2021. It is precisely on the ground that order of suspension in the case cannot be revoked without complying the government instruction dated 26.4.2016.
16. In the case on hand, the writ petitioner/non-appellant is facing a criminal case for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The learned Single Judge passed the judgment under appeal without referring to the Regulations applicable to the case and without realizing the seriousness of the offence. This is apart from the fact that there exist government instructions dated 26.4.2016, where referring to various judgments of the Supreme ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court, which include Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and R.P.Kapur (supra), it was instructed that the time limit of three months on suspension cases is applicable only to the cases arising out of departmental disciplinary enquiries pertaining to non- vigilance and/or any non-criminal cases and the said time limit is not applicable to suspension of an employee facing criminal case or grave corruption charges pending against him. The learned Single Judge has not referred to the aforesaid government directives, despite a resolution by the appellants for adoption of the guidelines to their Corporation as well.
20. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment, but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It is with the direction that each case may be considered on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the offence or the misconduct. The interference with the order of suspension should not be driven in reference to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and after considering the rules governing the delinquent. Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe and was caught red- handed by the Anti-Corruption Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing interference with the order of suspension. It is even after ignoring the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of A.Srinivasan (supra), wherein it was categorically held that the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not evolve a general principle for causing interference with the order of suspension if charge-sheet is not served or charge memo is not filed within three months of the order of suspension. The finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Srinivasan (supra) has even been ignored, though binding in nature.