M PACHAIYAPPAN Vs. COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 22.11.2010, made in W.P(MD).No.4757 of 2010. The Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.4757 of 2010, had been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent therein, dated 26.03.2010, made in ROC.No.12457/2009/A5.

(2.) It has been stated that by the said impugned order, dated 26.03.2010, the second respondent therein had placed the petitioner, who was working as the Executive Officer of Singampunari Selection Grade Town Panchayat, as he had been trapped and arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, on 08.07.2009. A criminal case had also been filed against him, in Crime No.5 of 2009, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, for demanding an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- for assessing the house tax of one T.Krishnakumar. Pursuant to his arrest, the petitioner had been remanded in judicial custody, on 09.07.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been suspended from service, as per sub-rule (e)(1)(ii) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules. The petitioner had challenged the said order in a Writ Petition filed before this Court, in W.P(MD).No.9130 of 2009.

(3.) It has been further stated that by an order, dated 06.11.2009, this Court had set aside the order, dated 09.7.2009, based on an order, dated 28.11.2006, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.(MD).No.416 of 2006 and W.P(MD).No.7680 of 2006, stating that a person, to be suspended from service, ought to have been in police custody or judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, as per Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, another order had been passed by the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, in his proceedings, in ROC.No.12457/2009/A5, dated 26.03.2010, suspending the petitioner from service, stating that a criminal offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, was under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner had challenged the said proceedings, before this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.4757 of 2010.