AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—This is the fourth writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging an order of suspension made against the Petitioner. The
Petitioner was employed as a Police Constable in Vaangal Police Station coming under the Karur District. He was caught in a trap case and was
arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Tiruchirappalli on 30.1.2009 for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 750/- from a
resident of Minnampalli village for returning his two wheeler vehicle. A corruption case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act in
Crime No. 1 of 2009. In view of this, the Petitioner was placed under suspension in public interest.
The Petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 3279 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension. S. Manikumar, J. by his order, dated 18.4.2009
dismissed the writ petition on merits. The Petitioner preferred a writ appeal being W.A.(MD) No. 268 of 2009. A division bench of this Court, by
its order, dated 24.6.2009 held that since suspension was made on corruption charges and that too in a trap case, there was no case made out to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge and hence the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner once again without any
justification filed W.P.(MD) No. 10171 of 2009 seeking for a direction to consider his representation, dated 5.8.2009 and to review the
suspension order. By an order, dated 12.10.2009, R.S. Ramanathan, J. directed the Respondents to consider initiating any departmental
proceedings. The Petitioner once again filed W.P.(MD) No. 4316 of 2010 challenging the original order of suspension as well as the order refusing
to review the said suspension. P. Jyothimani, J. by his order, dated 01.04.2010, once again directed the Petitioner to make a representation and
the Respondents were directed to consider the said representation. Taking advantage of this observation, the Petitioner sent a representation,
dated 7.4.2010. The first Respondent, pursuant to the direction, by his order, dated 19.4.2010 held that the Petitioner''s request was considered.
A criminal case registered against him was still under investigation by the Vigilance police. Hence at this stage, it was not feasible to release him
from suspension. Therefore, his request was rejected.
After filing case after case, the Petitioner has now once again come forward to challenge the original order of suspension and the first order,
dated 02.02.2010 refusing to review the order of suspension as well as the last order, dated 19.4.2010 where once again his request was
rejected. The conduct of the Petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. It is not enough to enclose all the orders obtained by him in
the earlier proceedings. When an order of suspension was upheld by this Court and an appeal against such an order was dismissed, there is no
scope for the Petitioner to keep on filing writ petitions and his conduct is a virtual raid on this Court.
The Petitioner who is a police constable can even afford to file so many litigations itself shows that his conduct is some how to get an order from
this Court to get back to service even when a criminal case is still pending. In suspension, the only benefit a Government servant can have is a
review by the competent authority which has been done two times in this case.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad and others Vs. K. Ratnagiri, . In paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
...The government may review the case and make further or other order but the order of suspension will continue to operate till it is rescinded by
an appropriate authority.
Further, a question whether any review at all is possible when a person is facing corruption charge came to be considered by this Court in R.
Ravichandran v. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai and Anr. in W.P. No. 12590 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. The following
passages found in paragraphs 80 to 83 may be usefully reproduced, which are as follows:
No Government servant, particularly a person charged with a misconduct of corruption, has right to insist that he should be retained in service
and allowed to discharge his duties and enjoy the privileges of the post held by him, during the pendency of the enquiry into grave charges or trial,
involving moral turpitude and it is the absolute discretion of the appointing/disciplinary authority or the Government to suspend such government
servant from discharging the duties attached to the post and to forbid him from exercising the privileges, except to the extent of payment of salary,
regulated in the Statute or rules, applicable to the case of such Government servant.
For the purpose of suspension, it is sufficient that the competent authority has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the Government servant
has committed a serious misconduct, which entails major penalties, like dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, etc., from service. Illustrative
cases, where action has to be taken immediately, are persons, involving in serious acts of misdemeanor, such as, (a) offence or conduct involving
moral turpitude, (b) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, (c) possession of disproportionate assets, (d) misuse of
official powers for personal gain, (e) serious negligence or dereliction of duty, (f) desertion of duty and (g) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out
written orders of superior officers; (h) apprehension of tampering with witnesses or documents or likelihood of causing prejudice to an inquiry,
investigation or trial; (j) likelihood of subversion of discipline in office; (k) involvement of scandals, and (l) likelihood of ultimate conviction out of
departmental proceedings, and in all these illustrative cases, it is the matter of necessity and public interest, involved and therefore, it which must be
left to the absolute discretion of the competent authority, with whom, the power is vested to suspend and that such discretion exercised in public
interest should not be interfered with lightly.
When the criminality of the government servant is adjudicated before the Court of competent jurisdiction and when the Police, Vigilance and
Anti- Corruption Department has launched prosecution or proposed to launch for imposing appropriate punishment under the penal laws, the
appointing/disciplinary authority/government, should be allowed to exercise their discretion to place the government servant under suspension,
which is a step in aid, to complete the investigation/trial. Courts have consistently held that even if the materials are not adequate for prosecution or
even after acquittal, when the appointing/disciplinary authority/government is empowered to place the government servant under suspension, the
power can be exercised on proper consideration of relevant materials, in public interest.
Once the objective consideration of the allegations, the material on record, warrants suspension, till the completion of enquiry or trial, in public
interest, it is not for this Court to examine the nature of the allegations, the evidence and to record any finding thereon, which would hamper the
progress of the departmental enquiry or investigation or trial against the government servant.
In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the Petitioner to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand
dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousands). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. This Court is constrained to
impose costs on the Petitioner only because the Petitioner in the last two years had filed three writ petitions and a writ appeal and has come
forward with the present case for the fourth time.