N.MATHI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Edamichi Village, Uthiramerur Taluk. In this writ petition, he had challenged an order of suspension dated 11.2.2009. The suspension order was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, the first respondent herein. In the suspension order, it was stated that the petitioner had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.500/-. He was caught in a trap case laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption police and he was also arrested. Hence he was placed under suspension with effect from 6.2.2009.

(2.) THE petitioner immediately filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26303 of 2009 seeking to challenge the order of suspension. However, when the matter came up on 17.03.2011, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the respondents for reconsidering the suspension. Even as per the admission of the petitioner, he did not send any review application. On the other hand, he sent a representation only on 6.8.2012 after making a reference to the common order passed in a batch of writ petitions relating to the corrupt Government servants facing criminal cases. The batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.29195 of 2010 and batch cases in G.Mathivannan Vs. The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and another was disposed of by a common order dated 02.07.2012. In that case, the suspension orders were quashed on several grounds and heavy reliance was placed upon a judgment of a division bench of this court in P.S.Ambigapathy Vs. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine reported in 1991 WLR 273. In that case, it was held that 3 years being under suspension would amount to prolonged suspension and that will also apply to a criminal case pending. Therefore, the learned Judged had quashed the order of suspension. The petitioner wanted to have the similar relief on the ground that he is also facing suspension for three years.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the order passed by the learned judge of this court, dated 02.07.2012, it is necessary to analyze the ratio of the said judgment. In that case, the learned Judge apart fro the division bench order, also referred to the State Government circular in G.O.(Ms)No.40, P&AR Department, dated 30.01.1996, prescribing certain guidelines for keeping a Government servant under suspension. The learned Judge also referred to the decisions of the two learned Judges of this court including this court in paragraph 3 of its judgment as this court in R.Ravichandran Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai and another in W.P.No.12590 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010, S.Manikumar, J., has made an exhaustive reference to all the cases of the Supreme Court and this court and held that such suspension cannot be interfered with only because the trial in the criminal case getting delayed. In paragraph 8 of the order dated 2.7.2012, though it was observed that as the atmosphere prevails today, the corruption charges have to be dealt with severely and strenuous action has to be initiated against the corrupt and there was no doubt regarding the same, but however, after making a reference to the Ambigapathy's case (cited supra), it was stated that if the criminal trial is delayed, then the 3 years can be taken as the prolonged suspension and persons can be restored and posted in far away placed and after extracting work, they can be paid salary instead of paying 75% of subsistence allowance.