AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
Heard the parties.
The petitioners in the above writ petitions are working as Superintendent, Assistant Quality Inspector, Watchman, Packer and Bill Clerk
respectively in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown at Athur.
Having been served with an order of suspension dated 7.3.97 on the ground that certain irregularities have been noticed by the Inspector of
Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Salem and an enquiry into grave charges against them is contemplated. The petitioners were deemed to have been
placed under ad interim suspension from service with effect from 6.3.97 in the public interest.
It is alleged that the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Salem, intercepted a lorry at 7:20 pm on 5.3.97 and found that the lorry was
carrying 120 bags of rice from Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown, Athur, which was meant for public distribution system to be
delivered at Bangalore.
On the basis of the statement obtained from one. Arul Prakash, son of one Mr.Thirumalaisamy, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D.,
Salem also conducted an intensive verification of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation godown at Athur and found corrections in the issue
memos, entries in the gate and other registers and also found that the platform scale shows excess weighment of 700 grams for every quintal.
The petitioners were arrested by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. Athur on 6.3.97 itself in connection with the said occurrence said
to have been taken place on 5.3.97, and they were subsequently enlarged on bail only on 16.3.97 i.e., after 10 days. Hence, the petitioners passed
the impugned order dated 7.3.97, wherein, the petitioners are deemed to have been placed under ad interim suspension from service with effect
from 6.3.97.
Mr. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the impugned order dated 7.3.97 on the following Grounds:-
(i) The intensive verification conducted by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Salem at the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Godown at Athur,
did not disclose any storage loss. In the absence of such storage loss, the impugned order dated 7.3.97 is liable to be quashed for non application
of mind. Consequently, the respondents have no authority and jurisdiction to suspend the petitioners on the ground that an enquiry into grave
charges is contemplated by invoking regulation 6(a) (I) & (II) of Chapter V, Viz., Disciplinary proceedings, penalties and Appeal Regulations of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
(ii) Assuming that the respondents have invoked Regulation 6(b) under which, the petitioners shall be deemed to have been suspended for having
been detained in custody for a period longer than 48 hours, such an order of suspension, which is deemed to have been made under Regulation
6(b), ought to have been revoked by the authorities by exercising the power u/s 6(c), because, the intensive verification did not disclose any
irregularity on the godown.
The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. Placing reliance on the averments stated in the counter affidavit, Mr. R.
Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the petitioners were admittedly arrested on 6.3.97 and enlarged on bail only
on 16.3.97 and therefore, the respondents are right in invoking Regulation 6(b), under which, the petitioners are deemed to have been kept under
suspension with effect from 6.3.97.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian stoutly denies the contentions of the petitioners that no irregularity was found during the intensive verification in the
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown at Athur by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation C.I.D., Salem on 6.3.97. He explains that
the petitioners have failed to maintain the platform scale properly, which showed an excess weighment of 700 grams for every quintal and thus
attempted to correct the issue memos and entries and registered in the gate, so that, the excessive bags of rice could be adjusted. Therefore Mr. R.
Balasubramanian contends that an enquiry into gave charges are contemplated against the petitioners, and hence, the respondents are right in
passing the impugned order of suspension dated 7.3.97 by invoking Regulation 6(b) (I) &(II).
I have given a very careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
The Regulations 6(a) (I) & (II), 6(b), 6(c) & 6(d) are relevant to be referred for the purpose of Chapter V of the disciplinary proceedings of
the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Employees Service Regulations, 1989 which reads as follows:
6(a) An employee may be placed under suspension from service by the Authority Competent to dismiss or remove him from service where:
(i) An enquiry against him/her into grave or serious irregularities either by an act of commission or omission or gross indiscipline or wilful
misbehavior is contemplated or is pending. However, in all such cases, definite charges should be served on the delinquent within 3 months from
the date of order of suspension, failing which the suspension order be revoked notwithstanding the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings .
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence affecting his moral turpitude is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in
the interest of the corporation.
6(b) An employee who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period longer than 48 hours shall be deemed to have
been suspended under this regulation.
6(c) 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
competent to make, (in cases of deemed suspension) or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. The treatment of the period spent
as suspension shall be as indicated in Regulation 4.
6(d) In every case of suspension pending enquiry when the period of suspension exceeds 2 years, the Chairman and Managing Director shall
revoke the suspension after reviewing the case, without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. However, this shall not apply to cases of
suspension wherein Criminal Proceedings are pending.
On a reading of Regulations 6(a) (I) & (II) in the tight of the averments stated in the counter affidavit and the submissions of the learned
counsel for the respondents, I do not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry into
grave charges against the petitioners by invoking the said Regulations 6(a) (I) & (II).
This apart, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are deemed to be in
suspension with effect from 6.3.97 in view of the fact that they have been arrested on 6.3.97 and enlarged on bail only on 16.3.97. Regulation 6(b)
squarely applies to the instant case and therefore, I do not find any infirmity even in this regard. Merely because Section 6(c) enables the
respondents to revoke the order of suspension impugned in the above writ petition, the petitioners cannot claim it as a matter of right calling on the
respondents to revoke the impugned order by exercising the power under regulation 6(c), because regulation 6(c) only confers the discretion on
the respondents that has to be exercised bonafidely in just and necessary cases. Hence, such a discretionary power cannot be compelled to be
exercised in a case where a criminal trial is still pending.
However, in view of the contentions of Mr. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners that no irregularity was found during the intensive
verification had on 5.7.97 at the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown by the Civil Supplies C.I.D. Salem, the enquiry contemplated
into the grave charges are vitiated for non-application of mind, and taking note of the fact that charges were already framed against the petitioners
on 27.5.97 and any undue delay in completing the enquiry would result in Civil consequences, the respondents are hereby directed to conduct an
enquiry after giving all reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and to pass appropriate final orders on merits within six weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Of course, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents in exercising their own power under Regulation 6(c), as
deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Apart from the above direction, I do not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.3.97.
In the result, the writ petitions are ordered accordingly, However, there will be no orders as to costs.