K BABY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THANJAVUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Village Administrative Officer of Gudalur Village, Thanjavur Taluk, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order, dated 26.8.2005. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of the fact that a criminal offence was under investigation and public interest requires that she should be placed under suspension. THE order was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, the respondent herein. In the order it was also stated that the petitioner was arrested on 25.8.2005 in a trap case laid by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption unit, Thanjavur for having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/- from one Sivanesan, a resident of Gudalur village for recommending transfer of patta. A criminal case was also registered in Crime No.9 of 2005 under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. THE petitioner had also obtained bail.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the order of suspension before this court in W.P.(MD)No.9643 of 2005. However, this court without going into the merits of the suspension, directed that if any representation is made by the petitioner, the same can be considered by the department. In the meanwhile, the Special Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrar, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam by an order, dated 16.11.2006 had framed charges and ordered the matter for trial. At that juncture, the petitioner once again moved this court with W.P.(MD)No.6244 of 2006 seeking for revocation of suspension. This was on the ground that though suspension was made in the year 2005, there was no review by the department. However, this court on merits dismissed the writ petition vide its judgment, dated 5.10.2007, stating that as long as there is prima facie case for suspension, there is no question of revoking the suspension and the petitioner's writ petition was thoroughly misconceived. THE petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the said order and has also not filed any review before this court. However, on finding that similarly placed persons were receiving favourable interim order, the petitioner once again preferred W.P.(MD)No.12065 of 2009.

(3.) IT is seen from records that an interim stay has been granted relying upon the judgment of this court in The State of Madras Vs. K.A.Joseph reported in AIR 1970 Madras 155. In the said case, there was initial disobedience of the order passed by this court in not framing the charges. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked. There was objection for restoration of service on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the suspension which was rejected. Thirdly when the embarrassment of restoration of a Government servant facing serious charges to the very same place was made, the court also directed his being posted to some other post in the very same status and salary.