PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein was working as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai North, between the year 2006 and 2008. Thereafter, he reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. At that point of time, he was working as Regional Manager in Civil Supplies Corporation. At that stage, two orders were passed in G.O[2D).No.214, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, dated 29.06.2017 and G.O.[2D].No.219, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, dated 29.06.2017, by placing him under suspension and resultantly not permitting him to retire from service under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, [for brevity, "the Rules"] and 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. These two orders were put into challenge before the learned Single Judge. By order dated 11.01.2018, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition, inter alia holding that there is no material to implicate the first respondent and till 30.06.2017, there was no case registered against the first respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the State.

(2.) Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, would submit that a complaint was received from one Dr.H.S.Sheik Ibrahim, on 16.01.2017, alleging that the Government properties were sold through the pattas given treating them as private lands. On the aforesaid complaint, a direction was issued to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to conduct a preliminary enquiry, vide letter dated 31.01.2017. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption sent his report to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, on 30.03.2017, which was forwarded to the Vigilance Commission on 21.06.2017 to take a decision. The Vigilance Commission granted permission to register a regular case on 27.06.2017 and accordingly, the complaint was registered. In the interregnum, the first respondent had reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. Therefore, keeping the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders were passed. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that Rule 17(e) of the Rules will have to be read along with Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. At this stage, we are on the exercise of power pending further development in the investigation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. What is relevant, at this stage, is the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, which was accepted by the Vigilance Commission, resulting into the registration of the First Information Report. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, is required to be interfered with.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel on record, would submit that Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules will have to be read along with the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007, which speaks of avoidance of disciplinary proceedings by way of suspension on the date of retirement. Though the aforesaid Government Order excludes the proceeding initiated by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the criminal cases, the object will have to be seen. It is not a case, where the enquiry has been initiated by the appellants departmentally, but, only an investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Admittedly, the case was registered only on 21.02018, which is after the date of superannuation of the first respondent. Even the District Collector has given a clean chit on an earlier occasion. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference at the hands of this Court.