AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 22.11.2010, made in W.P (MD). No. 4757 of 2010. The Writ Petition in W.P (MD). No. 4757 of 2010, had been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent therein, dated 26.03.2010, made in ROC.No.12457/2009/A5.
It has been stated that by the said impugned order, dated 26.03.2010, the second respondent therein had placed the petitioner under suspension, who was working as the Executive Officer of Singampunari Selection Grade Town Panchayat, as he had been trapped and arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, on 08.07.2009. A criminal case had also been filed against him, in Crime No. 5 of 2009, u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- for assessing the house tax of one T. Krishnakumar. Pursuant to his arrest, the petitioner had been remanded in judicial custody, on 09.07.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been suspended from service, as per sub-rule (e)(1)(ii) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules. The petitioner had challenged the said order in a Writ Petition filed before this Court, in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009.
It has been further stated that by an order, dated 06.11.2009, this Court had set aside the order, dated 09.7.2009, based on an order, dated 28.11.2006, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.(MD).No.416 of 2006 and W.P (MD). No. 7680 of 2006, stating that a person, to be suspended from service, ought to have been in police custody or judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, as per Rule 17 (e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, another order had been passed by the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, in his proceedings, in ROC.No.12457/2009/A5, dated 26.03.2010, suspending the petitioner from service, stating that a criminal offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, was under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner had challenged the said proceedings, before this Court, in W.P. (MD). No. 4757 of 2010.
It is noted that a learned single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 22.11.2010, had dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, had the power to suspend the petitioner from service, pending enquiry, in respect of the charges alleged against him. Challenging the said order, the petitioner, in W.P (MD). No. 4757 of 2010, has preferred the present Writ Appeal.
The appellant in the Writ Appeal has stated that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the earlier order of suspension, dated 09.07.2009, had been challenged, in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009 and the said Writ Petition had been allowed, by an order passed by this Court, on 06.11.2009. In such circumstances, it is not open to the second respondent in the Writ Appeal, to pass another order, suspending the petitioner from service, in his proceedings, in Roc.No.12457/2009/A5, dated 26.03.2010, especially, when the earlier order passed by this Court, on 06.11.2009, in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009, had become final.
It has also been stated that, after this Court had passed the order, dated 06.11.2009, in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009, the appellant ought to have been reinstated him in service. Instead, the second respondent had passed the order, dated 26.03.2010, suspending the appellant from service, without having proper reasons to do so.
It had also been stated that the learned single Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that there was an order of interim stay of the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 09.07.2009, during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Even after the said Writ Petition had been finally allowed, the appellant had not been reinstated in service, with all attendant service benefits.
At the time of the hearing of the present Writ Appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant ought to have been reinstated in service, pursuant to the oder passed by this Court, on 06.11.2009, in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009. Instead of reinstating the appellant in service, the second respondent, had passed the order, dated 26.03.2010, suspending the appellant from service, once again. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had not disputed the fact that the second respondent had the power to suspend the appellant from service, during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, in respect of the allegations made against him. However, he had contended that the period, between 9.7.2009 and 26.3.2010, ought to have been treated as ''duty period''. As such, the appellant would be entitled to all monetary and other service benefits for the said period, between 9.7.2009 and 26.3.2010.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the second respondent had the power to issue the order, dated 26.03.2010, suspending the petitioner from service, during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, relating to the charges levelled against the appellant. The respondents, however, had not disputed the claim of the appellant that the period, between 09.07.2009 and 26.03.2010, would be considered as ''duty period'', as claimed by the appellant.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the second respondent, on 26.03.2010, cannot be held to be invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order, dated 22.11.2010, made in W.P (MD). No. 4757 of 2010. However, it is made clear that the appellant would be entitled to all service benefits for the period, between 09.07.2009 and 26.03.2010.
It is noted that this Court, by its order, dated 06.11.2009, made in W.P (MD). No. 9130 of 2009, had set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 09.07.2009, suspending the petitioner from service. Thereafter, only on 26.03.2010, the second respondent had passed an order suspending the petitioner from service, pending enquiry proceedings, in respect of the charges levelled against him. In such circumstances, it is made clear that the appellant is entitled to all the service benefits, for the period between 09.07.2009 and 26.03.2010, as per the service conditions applicable to him.
This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.