P.S.K. SINGARAVELU Vs. THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order in S.O.(Ms).No.72, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016, whereby the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 30.05.2016 until further orders and the consequential order in S.O.(Ms).No.73, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016, not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and retaining him in service until enquiry into charges contemplated and criminal case under trial against the petitioner, are concluded and final orders are passed. The petitioner seeks to quash the said orders and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat by direct recruitment under Group-V through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with effect from 13.08.1985. After satisfactory declaration of probation, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sec. Officer with effect from 29.03.1989, then as Sec. Officer with effect from 06.07.2000, thereafter as Under Secretary with effect from 16.11.2007 and subsequently as Committee Officer (Public Accounts Committee) with effect from 28.11.2011. It is further stated that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat (TNLAS) is a separate unit and the staff of the Legislative Assembly Secretariat are governed by separate service Rules framed under Art. 187(3) of the Constitution of India, namely the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules, 1955 (TNLAS Service Rules). The TNLAS Service Rules is a separate code by itself, covering the entire service conditions of employment including disciplinary procedures from Class I to Class IV of the TNLAS. Rules 28 to 45 of the TNLAS Service Rules provide for initiation of disciplinary action against the staff members. It is further stated that as per the TNLAS Service Rules, the first respondent is the appointing authority upto the level of Sec. Officer and from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Secretary, His Excellency The Governor is the appointing authority. The petitioner was promoted and appointed as Under Secretary with effect from 16.11.2007 by the order of the Governor and then promoted as Committee Officer (PAC) with effect from 28.11.2011 by the order of the Governor.

(3.) While the petitioner was acting as the Committee Officer (PAC) in TNLAS, a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered by the second respondent against M. Selvaraj, former Secretary of LAS, S. Balakrishnan, Sec. Officer, P.S.K. Singaravelu (the petitioner herein), K.Indira, Joint Secretary (Retd) and C. Amaldas, a third party, who was the member of Virugambakkam Carpentry and Blacksmith Co-operative Cottage Industrial Society Ltd., Chennai, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 477-A, 409, 511 read with 409 Penal Code read with Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and Sec. 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No.02/AC/2012/CC-IV, dated 02.07.2012. The only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that while he was working as Under Secretary (Buildings), he approved a note put up by the Sec. and thereby attempted to create a wrongful loss of Rs.3,90,400.00 to the State Exchequer. The said note was further approved by the then Secretary on 30.03.2011. Even according to the complaint, the note was put up for payment to the Virugambakkam Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers' Co-operative Society, by re-appropriation of funds from one Head to the relevant Head of account. In view of coming into force of the Model Code of Conduct for General Election, 2011, the file was sent to the Election Commission for clearance, however, the same was returned by the Election Commission for a decision to be taken after the Assembly Elections. Hence, the note itself became infructuous, in view of closure of the financial year on 31.03.2011 and it is well known that after closure of the financial year, the re-allocation of funds cannot be made and hence, the purpose of the note was aborted and no amount was actually drawn from the State Exchequer or paid to any party or benefited by any party. However, the petitioner was targeted and the FIR had been registered against him on 02.07.2012 after a gap of 15 months, which itself is nothing but a pick and choose exercise with an intention to ruin the petitioner's official career. The FIR against the petitioner is nothing but a colourable exercise, mala-fide and has no substance or basis. Though the FIR was registered on 02.07.2012, there was no progress and till date, charge sheet has not been filed.