AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order of suspension passed by the first respondent dated 4.4.2007
and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner in service.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.10.1987 by way of direct recruitment and subsequently he
was promoted as Inspector of Police. While he was serving as Inspector of Police at Alwarthirunagari Police Station, he was trapped in a vigilance
case and FIR was registered against him in Cr. No. 2 of 2007 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tuticorin District. Due to the involvement of the petitioner in the above case, petitioner was
placed under suspension by order dated 4.4.2007 invoking Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955. The grievance of the petitioner is that no charge memo was issued to the petitioner till date and charge sheet is also not filed
in the criminal case. Petitioner submitted a representation on 23.10.2007 seeking revocation of his suspension.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
From the perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the petitioner was arrested in a trap case at Alwarthirunagari, Titicorin District, on
3.4.2007 at about 19.55 hours for having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one M. Jayapal, by the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption authorities and thereby he involved in crime No. 2 of 2007 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, and it is necessary in the public interest to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. The said suspension order is
passed exercising powers conferred under Rule 3(e) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, with
effect from 3.4.2007 afternoon until further orders.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an Inspector of Police, who was arrested in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption case for demanding and
accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- on 3.4.2007 at 19.55 hours and a criminal case was registered in crime No. 2 of 2007. Petitioner being Inspector
of Police, the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, is applicable to him. Rule 3(e)(1) enables the
department to place a person of Police force under suspension when he is involved in a criminal case, pending enquiry/investigation/trial. For
proper appreciation, the said rule is extracted hereunder,
Rule 3(e)(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where-
(i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending, or
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or he is under trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
From a perusal of the said rule it is evident that a member of the Police force can be placed under suspension if anyone of the conditions contained
in the above rule is satisfied.
The above said Rule 3(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995, is similar to Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows:
Rule 17(e)(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where,
(i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending; or
(ii) a complaint against him or any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
A Division Bench of this Court considered Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in W.A. No. 1114 of 2007
and by Judgment dated 5.11.2007 upheld the order of suspension pending investigation/trial of criminal offence.
The power of the department to place an officer under suspension, on public interest, pending enquiry into the disciplinary proceeding/criminal
investigation/trial, is well settled.
(a) The Supreme Court in the decision reported in The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others Vs. Hotel Workers'' Union, in
paragraph 10 held thus,
The first question therefore that falls for consideration is the extent of the power of the employer to suspend an employee under the ordinary
law of master and servant. It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied
term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract,
or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules
framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he
forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend
either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the
relation of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. These
principles of the ordinary law of master and servant are well settled and have not been disputed before us by either party. Reference in this
connection may be made to Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd. 1915 1 KB 698 Wallwork v. Fielding 1922-2 KB 66, Secretary of State Vs.
Surendra Nath Goswami, and Rura Ram Vs. Divisional Supdt., N.W. Rly., Lahore, .
(b) Again in the decision reported in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the Supreme Court held that the authority entitled to
appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending criminal proceeding, which
may eventually result in departmental enquiry against him.
(c) In Balvantray Ratilal Patel Vs. The State of Maharashtra, a question arose as to whether a person, who was placed under suspension pending
further orders due to pendency of criminal case, gets automatically restored into the service if the criminal case ended in acquittal. The Supreme
Court held that even after the acquittal, a fresh order revoking the order of suspension should be passed by the department and there is no
automatic revocation of suspension arises.
In the case on hand, petitioner, who is an Inspector of Police, was suspended as he was trapped and arrested for having demanded and
accepted bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and a criminal case was also registered in Crime No. 2 of 2007 and the same is admittedly pending investigation.
When a serious charge of demand and acceptance of bribe is made against an Inspector of Police and the suspension order having been passed in
exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on public
interest, no exception could be taken to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the petitioner.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the respondents from
considering the request of the petitioner seeking revocation of the suspension order, on its own merits. There will be no order as to costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.