NEPOLIAN, OFFICE ASSISTANT Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order, dated 22.05.2013 the District Registrar(Admn.) Additional Charge, Trichy has suspended the Petitioner from service, on the ground that a criminal case in crime 421 of 2012 under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) has been registered on the file of the Fort Police Station, Tiruchirappalli and for the reason that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated for suppression of the above said criminal proceedings, Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

(2.) ASSAILING the correctness of the impugned order of suspension, Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per Appendix 3 to Rule 14 -a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Sub -Registrar alone is the competent authority to impose a penalty of suspension and that therefore the District Registrar(Admn.), Additional Charge, Tiruchirappalli has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order of suspension.

(3.) IT is also the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that based on a baseless complaint against the Petitioner, a false case has been registered, implicating the Petitioner in two criminal cases, in crime No.1454 of 2012 under Section 147, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Crime No.421 of 2012 under Section 294(b) and 506(ii)IPC and in both cases, the Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has prayed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order of suspension, dated 22.05.2013 and consequently, to reinstate the Petitioner in service as Office Assistant.