P. Jeyarani vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme and The Director of Social Welfare

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner is working as District Social Welfare Officer, Thanjavur. He is placed under suspension by the

second respondent under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by order dated 18.03.2013. The same is

questioned in the Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without any authority. Heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that under Appendix III to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, the second respondent is not a competent Authority to pass the order placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence, the impugned

order is without authority.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the second respondent is not a

competent Authority to pass an order of penalty of suspension, but the second respondent is a competent Authority to place the petitioner under

suspension pending disciplinary action under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

I have considered the submissions made by both sides.

The petitioner is placed under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is not a

punishment and it is only suspension, pending disciplinary action. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the relevant passage from Rule 14(a) of

the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules:

14(a) (1) The authority which may impose suspension referred to in rule 17(e) or penalties of -

(i) censure

(ii) fine,

(iii) withholding of increments, and

(iv) (a) recovery from pay of the whole or pat of any pecuniary loss caused to the State Government or the Central Government or to a local body

by negligence or breach of orders, or

(b) recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld, where such an

order cannot be given effect to, on a member of a Subordinate Service shall be his immediate superior Officer of the State Services or, where the

appointing authority for such members is an Officer of the Subordinate Services, such officer or any higher authority;

As per Rule 14(a) r/w 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the immediate superior Officer is competent to

place the delinquent employee under suspension. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is the immediate superior Officer to the petitioner.

Therefore, he is the competent Authority under Rule 14(a) r/w 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to place the

petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary action. Appendix III of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules relates to the

Authorities who are competent to impose various penalties. Hence, Appendix III of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules

can have no application in the present case. If the petitioner is imposed the penalty of suspension, then the Authority, who has imposed the

punishment shall be the authority under Appendix III of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules to pass such an order. Hence,

I am of the view that the second respondent is competent to pass the suspension order placing the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary

proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No

costs.