2011 (11) TMI 875 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms decision, denies appeal, revokes suspension pending trial, suggests reassignment for salary utilization.

The Court upheld the decision of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appeal without costs and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition. The Court ... Revocation of suspension - Prolonged suspension pending criminal trial - Disciplinary suspension pending criminal trial - Requirement of specific allegation in the First Information Report - Subsistence allowance and duty to extract work - Application of Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Natural justice and Article 21Prolonged suspension pending criminal trial - Subsistence allowance and duty to extract work - Natural justice and Article 21 - Whether continued suspension of the respondent for nearly five years, with little progress in the criminal trial and payment of subsistence allowance, was unsustainable. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the respondent had been under suspension for about five years, the investigation was completed and a charge sheet filed in March 2008, but the trial had made no material progress beyond examination of P.W.1. Continued suspension for such prolonged period without productive progress was held unnecessary. The judgment emphasised that after six months of suspension subsistence allowance becomes payable and that keeping an employee on long suspension without extracting any work amounts to wasting public funds. The Court further observed that prolonged suspension, when unjustified by trial progress, engages considerations of natural justice and Article 21 by effectively depriving the employee of meaningful employment for an extended period. [Paras 8, 11]Continued suspension for the period in question was unsustainable and revocation of suspension during the trial was appropriate.Requirement of specific allegation in the First Information Report - Revocation of suspension - Disciplinary suspension pending criminal trial - Application of Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Whether suspension should be revoked where the respondent's name did not appear in the FIR and there was no specific allegation against him, and the scope for invoking Rule 3(e)(5). - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the respondent's name did not find place in the FIR and there was no specific allegation of corruption against him; the FIR specifically named the Sub Inspector. Applying Rule 3(e)(5), which permits revocation of suspension by the authority which made it or by a superior authority, the Court held that revocation of suspension pending trial was justified in the circumstances. The Court accepted the learned single Judge's conclusion that revocation could be coupled with posting the respondent to a non sensitive, distant post so that work could be extracted while the criminal trial continued. [Paras 9, 10, 11]Suspension was to be revoked under Rule 3(e)(5) and the respondent could be posted to a distant non sensitive post during the continuing trial.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the learned single Judge's order quashing the suspension; the respondent's suspension is to be revoked and he may be posted to a non sensitive distant post so that work may be extracted while the criminal trial proceeds, with no order as to costs. Issues involved: Appeal against order of suspension u/s Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in a criminal case u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenge of suspension order, non-consideration of revocation request, quashing of suspension order, principles of natural justice, prolonged suspension, revocation of suspension u/s 3(e)(5) of the Rules.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range filed an appeal against the order of suspension of the respondent, a Head Constable, in connection with a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent challenged the suspension order through writ petitions, seeking revocation which was not favorably considered by the authority, leading to the present appeal.The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the suspension order, which prompted the appellant to file the current appeal. An interim stay was granted on the single Judge's order, which was later made absolute. Arguments were presented by both parties regarding the necessity of continued suspension during the criminal trial and the legality of quashing the suspension order.The appellant argued that the serious nature of the misconduct warranted the suspension to maintain probity in public administration, citing guidelines and the need to uphold honest conduct. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the respondent was not directly involved in the alleged bribery incident, questioning the validity of the trap and emphasizing the violation of natural justice in prolonged suspension.The Court noted the prolonged suspension of the respondent for five years without significant progress in the criminal trial, highlighting the absence of specific allegations against the respondent in the FIR. Referring to Rule 3(e)(5) of the Rules, the Court determined that revocation of suspension was appropriate pending trial, suggesting reassignment to a non-sensitive post to utilize the salary paid as subsistence allowance.Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appeal without costs and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.