T VIJAYARAJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging her suspension, pending disposal of the prosecution against her, for an indefinite period to be illegal, arbitray and with a prayer to quash the order of suspension, passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.264/2016/A1, dated 18.01.2017, and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal prosecution initiated against him.

(2.) It appears, the petitioner, while she was working as Village Administrative Officer, was trapped in a case by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption of the State, for receiving illegal gratification. Thereafter, she was taken into custody and placed under suspension vide the impugned order. The order of suspension is not a determinative one. Thereafter, no review of such suspension has been done. Meanwhile, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has filed and the petitioner is in receipt of subsistence allowance at the rate of 75%, as the suspension is for more than six months. The petitioner representation made in this regard to the 2nd respondent has been forwarded to the 1st respondent to revoke the order of suspension and post him in some faraway place, still it has not been disposed of. But, subsequently his representation has been rejected on 18.01.2017 assigning the reason that the same is contrary to the policy decision of the Government, the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law with a prayer to quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service.

(3.) Counter affidavit in this regard has been filed by the respondents indicating that the suspension has been reviewed which has been extended and the petitioner has been granted 75% of the subsistence allowance and also the fact that since the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case, his continuance in the service is not permissible in view of the Government Letter (MS) No.43/N/2015-3 Dated 26.04.2016 wherein in paragraph No.5 and in Paragraph No.17, it has been clearly stated and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension order is devoid of merits.