R KANDHAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Inspector in the Co -operative Societies in Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service. He was promoted as a Senior Inspector. After promotion as Senior Inspector, he was working as a Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies, Thova Section in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vellore Circle. While so, he was directed to take additional charge as administrator of Vellore District Nutrition Employees Child Welfare Organiser and Helper Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society. He worked in the said post in additional charge from 23.03.2005 to 29.06.2005. Thereafter, he was transferred to the office of the Deputy Registrar, Dairy, Vellore. After that, he was transferred to K.V.Kuppam as Field Officer with effect from 1.1.2010. On 4.6.2011, he was transferred to Cooperative Sub -Registrar Office, Alangayam. While he was working as Cooperative Sub -Registrar, Alangayam, the respondent passed an order dated 6.6.2011 under Section 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules placing the petitioner under suspension. It is stated that there is a criminal case registered against the petitioner in F.I.R. No.1/2011, dated 3.6.2011 and the same is under investigation by CCIW, Vellore. The criminal case relates to the issuance of bogus loans and binamy loans and causing a financial loss to the society to the tune of Rs.16 Lakhs. It is further stated that the petitioner is deemed to have been suspended from service with effect from 4.6.2011 until further orders. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for admission on 24.6.2011, it is stated that while the petitioner was never arrested and he was granted anticipatory bail, invoking Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules would not have arisen and therefore, the order was passed without jurisdiction. The matter was adjourned. In the meantime, the respondent issued an Errata dated 17.6.2011. In the errata order, it is stated that there was a mistake in quoting the provision of law and it should be read as 17(e) instead of 17(e)(2). It is stated that the petitioner is placed under suspension since a criminal case is pending investigation. The petitioner has filed M.P.No.2/2011 to amend the prayer so as to quash the errata order dated 17.6.2011 and the same was allowed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that rule 17 (e) nowhere contemplates placing the petitioner under retrospective suspension with effect from 4.6.2011. According to him, 17 (e)(2) alone vests power with the authority to place the delinquent employee under suspension from the date on which the delinquent was arrested and detained in custody. Since 17(e)(2) was deleted by the errata order, the order should be treated as passed under 17(e) (1). Under Rule 17(e)(1), the respondent has no power to place the petitioner under suspension retrospectively from 4.6.2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Mahender Singh vs. Union of India and another reported in 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 127 in this regard.