C SURESH ANANTH Vs. DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT; DEPUTY DIRECTOR/JOINT DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order dated 12.09.2015 of the first respondent whereby the first respondent refused to interfere with the order of suspension dated 08.02.2013 passed by the second respondent.

(2.) While the petitioner was working as Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, on 06.02.2013 a case in Crime No. 2/AC/2013/CC-III was registered against him by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of the complaint given by one Ravi Kumar alleging that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for giving No Objection Certificate for the branch in which Auto LPG (Total Oil India Private Limited) has been opened at Plot No.313, Old No.71, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106. Based on such complaint, a trap was laid on 06.02.2013 during which the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of his arrest, he was suspended from service by an order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the second respondent.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the order of suspension dated 08.02.2013 has not been reviewed by the second respondent periodically, as required. Therefore, he has filed WP No. 34730 of 2013 before this Court challenging the order of suspension passed by the second respondent. Even though the petitioner challenged the order of suspension before this Court, at the time when WP No. 34730 of 2013 was taken up for hearing, the relief was restricted to issue a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, by order dated 30.10.2014, this Court disposed of WP No. 34730 of 2013 filed by the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent herein and on receipt of the same, the first respondent herein was directed to consider it and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Pursuant to such direction issued by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.05.2015 to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the order dated 12.09.2015 refusing to interfere with the order dated 08.02.2013 of the second respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.