Anil Kumar vs The Director of Agriculture and Others

M. Ramachandran, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P-5. It is seen that three persons had been placed under suspension, including himself. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent--Vigilance Department. But, the facts require that interference is essential.

Petitioner was appointed as a Work Superintendent in the Soil Conservation Office, Neyyattinkara, sometime in the year 1999. Shortly thereafter, there were certain allegations against a group of officers including him that in the matter of work carried out by the beneficiary committee for soil conservation work in Kulathoor, certain fictitious entries were made in collusion with a private contractor. On the basis of the allegations, the Petitioner and some others were placed under suspension on 10th April 2000. After an enquiry, it is seen that he had been reinstated on 23rd August 2000. He had been accommodated at Kottiyam, Anr. distant station.

Apparently, vigilance investigations are progressing and presently, Ext. P-5 suspension order is issued on the recommendation of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Sri Satheesan appearing for the Petitioner submits that the suspension, practically on the same set of allegations, is without justification and against public interest. He submits that although vigilance investigations are going on, it need not have necessarily resulted in the suspension order as well.

In the statement filed, it is pointed out that there is every chance of the Petitioner to influence the witnesses and in any case he should be denied access to records as an officer. The Vigilance Department therefore had advised the Government of the necessity for such action.

The Government has power to keep an officer under suspension whenever they choose. Here, the Petitioner was suspended and later reinstated. After reinstatement of the Petitioner, he had continued for almost over three years and the allegation that the continuation of the Petitioner in a different office will be detrimental to the interest of the Government appears to be far-fetched. Even if he is kept away, the possibility of his influencing witnesses cannot be achieved. The statement indicates that the incriminating materials have been seized, and there is only a delay in actual initiation of trial by the Vigilance Court.

In such circumstances, is it necessary to impose a fresh suspension? A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1434 of 1995 had held that such suspension need not be automatic, and attendant circumstances are to be meticulously examined. The power of suspension is to be sparingly used, since the advantages of such a procedure is far lesser than the disadvantages it may create. The officer is compelled to remain outside and idle. Government does not get benefit of his experience, there is a reduction in work force. Simultaneously payment of allowance become necessary. After an employee is subjected to such rusting, he walks back to the office as a disgruntled person, for opportunities might have irrevocably lost to him. If he is acquitted, this will have more adverse effect. He cannot also be prevented from moving about, and it may be possible for him to influence witnesses even. As far as the Government is concerned, there can be only a satisfaction that he is not attending the office; perhaps in a number of instances this can result only in an initial psychological satisfaction, which also is lost by passage of time. The Division Bench was considering such situations. Suspension is more to be an exception therefore than a rule. The Petitioner was in the initial stage of his career when the allegation came, and as the Counsel suggests, he might have acted under the instruction of his superiors, who are seniors, and might have been dragged in. However, it is too early to come to such conclusions. As far as the Petitioner at least is concerned, a fresh spell of suspension does not appear to be essential. Necessity therefore has not been established.

Notwithstanding Ext. P-4 order, the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of two weeks from today. But, that will not preclude the rights of the Respondents to continue the proceedings as against him and the reinstatement will not confer on him any additional rights whatsoever. Also on further materials, I am not forbidding a fresh suspension, if circumstances for such drastic measures become necessary.

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.