DR. BALAGURU Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the notice of motion issued to the Government, a note and the file concerning G.O. Nos. 1087 and 1088, dated 22nd June, 1978, are produced by the Government Pleader. This file and the note show that a petition containing certain allegations against the petitioner herein was received by the Director of Animal Husbandry. But the Director forwarded the petition to the Government with a request to entrust the matter to some other senior high -level officer of the Government for enquiry on the ground that the petitioner had been disputing the bona fides of the Director on earlier occasions and therefore he did not want to deal with that matter. On receipt of the petition, the Government forwarded the matter to the Director of Vigilance and Anti -corruption for a discreet enquiry and report. On receipt of the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti -corruption in which the Director has suggested that a detailed enquiry is called for, the concurrence of the Vigilance Commissioner was sought for and obtained. The Vigilance Commissioner also appears to have stated that since the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious enough, the Government could consider the question of suspending the officer pending a detailed enquiry. First the Government is stated to have considered the question of transferring the official to a different station. But ultimately, the Government came to the conclusion that since an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated, the officer had to be placed under suspension and accordingly by the impugned order, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the grave charges contemplated.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there is no inherent power of suspension as such and the power of suspension could be traced only to Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and that rule so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:

(3.) The decision of the Supreme Court in P.R. Nayak v/s. Union of India : (1972) I LLJ 535 SC relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner dealt with the power of suspension under Rule 3 of the AH India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The wording, in that rule is clearly different from those in Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, in so far as it is relevant is as follows: