D UTHIRAKUMARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Deputy collector-Category II, in the year 1978. He successfully completed his probation on 1st January 1981. He was promoted as District Revenue officer-Category I of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service. He was posted as Joint director of Stationery and Printing on 26th August 1986. He was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and posted as Senior regional Manager at Madras on 27th February, 1987. By proceedings dated 6th February, 1988, he was posted as District Revenue Officer at Chengalpattu. He joined the same on 8th february, 1988. On 12th March, 1988, Mr. Sameer Vyas was posted as Collector of chengalpattu at Kancheepuram.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the said Collector, not being well acquainted with Tamil, seems to have misunderstood the petitioner which led to some misunderstanding. While the matter stood thus, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, by G. O. Ms. No. 534, Public (Special-A)Department dated 23rd March, 1988, he was placed under suspension. The suspension had been ordered under sub-rule (e) of R. 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the'rules'). The order of suspension reads as if an enquiry into grave charges against the petitioner is contemplated and that it is necessary to place the petitioner under suspension from service in the public interest. Till date, no charge has been framed; nor any enquiry has been initiated, nor even a charge memo has been served. The petitioner understands that the respondents are fishing out for materials after placing the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that the order of suspension itself is to spoil the chances of further promotion of the petitioner. It is an indisputable matter of record that the petitioner was posted as District revenue Officer, Chengalpattu on 8th February, 1988 forenoon. THE second respondent joined as a District Collector on 2nd March 1988. In such a context the allegation that the petitioner tried to have intimate conversation with the second respondent cannot be believed. No sensible person would have ventured to have such a conversation as alleged, particularly having regard to the fact that he had no previous acquaintance with the second respondent. Likewise, there is absolutely no justification for the claim that there must have been some illegal operations.