M CHENGAIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as L. G. G. S. in Taluk Office, egmore, Nungambakkam, Madras-8. He was placed under suspension by an order, dated 29th May, 1979, under rule 17 (e) (i), (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, with effect from the forenoon of 24th April, 1979, passed by the second respondent. Having been kept under suspension for more than two years and three months, he is seeking for quashing the order of suspension, on the ground that no further step had been taken on the Crime No. 908 of 1979 registered as against him in R. 1. , Mylapore. police station under sections 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Along with him as against four other persons also, crime numbers were registered but so far no charge-sheet had been laid. He refers to G. O. Ms. No. 211, P. & A. R. , dated 27th February, 1980, wherein Government had impressed upon the concerned authorities the need to reduce the period of suspension to the bearest minimum. The order of suspension for an indefinite period without any review is against f. R. 53, and the continued suspension affects him greatly.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit the second respondent has stated that petitioner and three others who were all Last Grade Government servants indulged in criminal acts in fabricating bogus cement permits, and all the four persons were taken into custody by police for interrogation and they were arrested. The matter is still under investigation. Petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance and dear-ness allowance admissible under F. R. 53 (1 ). The deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes) has reported on 28th August, 1981, that the case is still under investigation, and'for want of cement permit register and original cement permit from the Tahsildar, Mylapore', he is unable to complete the investigation. G. O. Ms. No. 211 would not apply to the petitioner, since the period prescribed therein would not be applicable to cases of Government servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. The records asked by the Deputy Commissioner of Police are not immediately traceable, and action is being taken to file the charge-sheet expeditiously. The suspension is not indefinite, and since emergent steps have already been initiated to complete investigation and also for filing the charge-sheet, it does not violate either F. R. 53 or any of the rules under tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rides. Petitioner filed an additional affidavit claiming that one L. K. Nassod, Watchman of gopalapuram godown of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , was also arrested along with petitioner and three others, and the same complaints were made against all of them and a case was registered against him in the same police station in Crime No. 1334 of 1979. All of them were kept in police custody together, and allegations made are common in respect of all the five persons. The said Masood had since been restored to service by order, dated 21st August, 1981, of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC Ltd. , on the ground that' "the) Divisional Deputy INspector of Police, mylapore, was addressed to furnish copy of the charge-sheet filed against L. K. Masood, the matter was under correspondence with the police till date. But the police have not furnished a copy of the charge-sheet so far. A show-cause notice was issued to Thiru L. K. Masood in reference 5th cited asking him to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against him and his services terminated for his alleged involvement in a custody for ten days from 24th April, 1979 to 4th May, 1979. Thiru L. K. Masood in his explanation submitted in reference 6th cited has stated that he has not committed any malpractices and that he is not connected in any way with the issue of bogus permits. He has also submitted that no enquiries were conducted and no charge-sheet was laid against him by the police. IN the circumstance; he requested to restore him to duty. The explanation of the delinquent has been carefully examined. Despite a long correspondence with the police officials a definite report as to the stage of the case has not been received from them. The delinquent was under suspension for more than two years now. The police charge-sheet is still awaited. It is therefore not desirable to keep him under suspension any longer. Disciplinary action can be taken against him as and when the charge-sheet against him is received from the police. It is decided to restore him to duty pending further disciplinary action as may be warranted By the future course of the police case. It is, therefore, now ordered that he be restored to duty with immediate effect without prejudice to the disciplinary action which may be warranted in the event of the police filing a charge-sheet or in the face of material evidence which the management may come to have otherwise incriminating him in the alleged acts of cheating and misconduct. " Therefore, it is claimed that when a person, similarly placed and alleged to have been involved in the commission of the same offence, had been already restored to service, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the con-tinued suspension of the petitioner for an indefinite period, is violative of Article 14, and in any event being unreasonable, tantamounts to a punishment being imposed, without trial and hence under the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) WHEN these reminder letters were being sent to commissioner, in the meanwhile on 10th November, 1980, Government asked the collector to inform the present stage of the investigation. Petitioner and others have also submitted petitions to Government stating that prolonged suspension is putting them to unbearable hardship everyday. On 2nd April, 1981, the Commissioner for Revenue Administration informed the Collector that the time-limit prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 211, would not be applicable to these cases, and hence, there is no need for the case to be reviewed. As stated above, in spite of nine letters sent by Collector, beginning from 18th August, 1980 to 29th July, 1981 spread over a period of one year, Commissioner for the first time, realising that he could not complete the investigation for want or cement permit register and original cement permit from the Tahsildar, Mylapore, has stated that on receipt of them, the case will be completed and charge-sheet filed. This he wrote on 28th August, 1981. WHEN the Tahsildar, mylapore-Tri-plicane had been asked to submit a report he has stated that on a careful and thorough search made, only two files were found and sent to the crime branch and that the police had returned them stating that they are irrelevant and wanted his office to send two other files and that in spite of all efforts taken by the staff, the files could not be traced and a reply was already sent to him to that effect, and a police constable had taken delivery of that report in person on that day itself.