P PALANISAMY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are classic cases of abuse of the process indulged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is one and the same person in both writ petitions. Both writ petitions relate to suspension of the Petitioner made in public interest.

(2.) The Petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer of Varaganeri Village in Tiruchirappalli Taluk. On 26.5.2005, the Petitioner was caught in a trap case by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department for having demanded and accepted bribe amount. The Petitioner was proceeded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No. 8 of 2005 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police. Therefore, suspension was made in terms of Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli.

(3.) The Petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(MD) No. 1833 of 2006. Though the said writ petition was to set aside the suspension order, when the matter was listed on 28.8.2006, the counsel for the Petitioner restricted his relief into one of directing the Respondent to dispose of his representation, dated 24.12.2005. Accordingly, this Court directed the Respondent to dispose of his representation within four weeks. Pursuant to the said direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli by his proceedings, dated 17.10.2006 found that there was no such representation, dated 24.12.2005 received by his office. Even otherwise, since this Court had given directions, the Revenue Divisional Officer called the Petitioner and after making an enquiry and on considering his representation had refused to revoke the order of suspension. It was informed that since a case had been registered in Crime No. 8 of 2005 and appropriate proceedings have been taken by the Anti Corruption department to file a charge memo, the question of his revoking suspension did not arise. Further, the Petitioner was informed that if he so desires, he can make a further appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli.