TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is: "Whether the decision in C. Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli Corporation, Tiruchirapalli, and another, 2011 (1) CWC 319 (DB), W.A.(MD) No. 964 of 2010 dated 4.1.2011, is the correct position of law or the decision in The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Govindaraj, 2012 (1) CTC 124 (DB), is the exposition of the correct position of law ?" 3. Coming to the facts of the case, the Petitioner, a Village Administrative Officer of Koviloor Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, was arrested on 5.1.2012, in connection with a case in Crime No. 1 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Pudukottai, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District, thereafter, passed an Order, placing the Petitioner under suspension. Subsequently, the Petitioner gave a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking revocation of the Suspension Order, which was not considered. Pursuant thereto, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the persons indulging in Corruption practices cannot be allowed to be in public employment to maintain purity of administration, as such attitude will definitely affect public interest' and that there cannot be a different yardstick in a Criminal case and in fact, the Hon'ble High Court cannot create a class of Government servants in Criminal cases. According to the learned Counsel, the Judgment in C. Balasubramanian's case is not applicable to the present cases on hand and it is not a good law and the High Court cannot discriminate between two persons because of the reason that in the decision The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Govindaraj, 2012 (1) CTC 124, this Court had taken a different view that pending trial of a Criminal case applying Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the suspension of the Respondent therein shall be revoked, etc. In effect, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that in a Criminal case all allegations are to receive the same treatment and the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be treated differently. 6. The learned Counsel contends that the Order of Suspension is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Chennai, 2011 (2) MLJ 7, at special Page 8, wherein it is held that 'Suspension of an Employee cannot be prolonged on the ground of pendency of Criminal proceedings and it is the duty of the concerned Authority to expedite the Criminal case and complete the Departmental proceeding in accordance with law.' The learned Counsel also places reliance on a decision of this Court in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another v. S. Venkatesan and another, 2015 (1) CWC 58 (DB) : 2014 (5) MLJ 769 at special page 773, wherein in Paragraph 13, it is observed as follows: "13. Regulation 9(e) speaks about deemed suspension and it gives discretion to the concerned Authority to revoke the same. Admittedly, the case of the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner is one of deemed suspension for the reason that he was said to have received bribe from one Murugan and at that time, he was trapped and arrested by the officials of DVAC and kept in custody for about 3 days and since his period of custody exceeded 48 hours, he was placed under suspension in terms of Regulation 9(b). A clarification has also been issued by TNEB/TANGEDCO in Memorandum (Per) No. 1938/A18/A181/2010-1 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein it is held as follows: "77. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the Respondent that there has been no application of mind or the objective consideration of the facts by the Appellant before it passed the Orders of Suspension. As already observed, the very fact that the investigation was conducted by the C.B.I which resulted in the filing of a charge-sheet, alleging various offences having been committed by the Respondent, was sufficient for the Appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the Respondent should be suspended. It would be indeed inconceivable that a bank should allow an Employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and mis-appropriation of money. Allowing such a Employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was being prosecuted. Under the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Appellant to have taken recourse to the provisions of Clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The mere fact that nearly 10 years have elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground for allowing the Respondent to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on arrived at by the Management on the basis of the material in their possession, no conclusions to the contrary could be drawn by the Court at the interlocutory stage and without going through the entire evidence on record. In the circumstances, there' was no justification for the High Court to revoke the Order of Suspension." 15. The learned Additional Advocate General refers to G.O. Ms. No. 40, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.1.1996 wherein a reference to Rule 17(e)(3) to (6) was made and also in the very same G.O., he points out that in Paragraph 3, there is a reference to G.O. Ms. No. 1692, Public (Services), dated 17.8.1968. 16. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Department that G.O. Ms. No. 40, in Paragraph 7, shows that there is a reference to the Government Letter No. 107821/91-4, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.N) Department, dated 23.11.1992 (communicating the revised format of Suspension Orders), whereby and whereunder, instructions were issued in regard to the resorting of suspension specifying time limit for initiation, finalisation of Departmental proceedings including the matter referred to the Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. It is further being provided that extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time (copy of Notification is enclosed). "2. It is, therefore, necessary to constitute Review Committee(s) to review the Suspension cases. The composition of Review committee(s) may be as follows: (i) The Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and another Officer or the level of Disciplinary/Appellate Authority from the same office or from another Central Government Office (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the President is not the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority and two officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are equivalent or higher in rank than the Disciplinary Authority from the same office or another Central Government Office (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the Appellate Authority is the President. (iii) Three officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are higher in rank than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses all stages viz., the stage of Investigation, Enquiry, Trial, Appeal, Revision and Re-trial. It is in the interest of everyone that the guilt or innocence of an Accused is decided early. In the circumstances, if the prosecution is kept pending for a long/indefinite period, a vital piece of evidence may be obliterated by long lapse of time with the result that the evidence may not be available at the time of conducting trial. Also that, a mere delay, however short or long it may be, cannot be a sole justification for quashing the proceedings by a Competent Court. In fact, a piecemeal recording of evidence of Witnesses ought to be avoided by a Court of Law, since it may have an impact on the prosecution. Further, when Witnesses are present in Court, they must be examined except for 'special reasons' which are to be mentioned in the adjudication papers of the concerned Court at the time of passing of an Order of an adjudication. 22. It is true that the prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution. However, when does the prosecution become persecution will certainly depend upon the facts and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1152. Moreover,, the Rules may confer express power on the Authorities to modify or revoke the Order of Suspension vide Rule 10(5) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this connection, it may not be out of place to point out that it is necessary for an Employer to review periodically as to whether the continued suspension is necessary as per decision in Sarala Kumar (S.) and another v. Government of India, 1995 (1) LLN 25 (AP). 26. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Udai Narain, 1998 (4) LLN 641 (SC) : 1998 (5) SCC 535, at special Page 536, in Paragraph 4, it is held as follows: "4. A bare look at Rule 10 of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 would show that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. An unduly narrow technical view has been taken by the Tribunal to quash the Order of Suspension. The view of the Tribunal that the expression "investigation, inquiry or trial" would not include the stage of filing of the charge-sheet in the Court and since investigation was over and the trial had not yet commenced, the Respondent could not be placed under suspension, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inquiry and take advantage of its own lapse or delay in completing the Disciplinary proceedings. In a case of the nature where the accused is charged with a serious Criminal offence and is facing prosecution for the same at the instance of the Police before competent Criminal Courts and the adjudication in respect of the same by the competent Criminal Court which is seized of the matter has to be awaited as a matter of necessity, and the Service Rule does not permit as such, the Court cannot allow full Subsistence Allowance amounting to full pay and allowances. Unless the Respondent could substantiate that in cases of the nature pertaining to him, where for any lapse or delay, the Employer cannot be found fault with at all, the High Court could not have passed such an Order of the nature under challenge. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court on this ground alone. The Respondent will be allowed only 50% of the salary towards his Subsistence Allowance, which seems to have been already paid to him." 31. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1994 SC 948, at page 949, in Paragraph 5, it is observed as fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and moralizing the honest Officers; the efficiency in Public service would improve only when the Public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post, which was earlier held in the cases of Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (4) SCC 14; and State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, 2002 (1) SCC 1, has held that in the light of the above categorical pronouncements of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and having regard to the undisputed fact that the Appellant is involved in a Criminal case, that too, in a bribery case, he has no right to seek revocation of the Suspension Order, merely because the Criminal trial is pending for three years. It was also observed therein that on four occasions, the First Respondent-Corporation passed Orders rejecting the request of the Appellant seeking revocation of Suspension Order. Accordingly, the said Division Bench declined to interfere with the Order of Suspension passed against the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Criminal case, the suspension of the Respondent therein was to be revoked and as held by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent was ordered to be posted in a far away place in a non-sensitive post and work could be extracted from him for the salary paid. Therefore, the said Division Bench, in our standpoint, rightly did not find any illegality or infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. 35. Therefore, we hold that both the laws laid down by two different Division Benches of this Court, one in C. Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli, and the other in The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Govindaraj, which are referred to in the point for reference before this Full Bench, are the correct laws, considering the different facts and circumstances involved therein and, as such, in our viewpoint, there is no conflict of decisions between them. 36. In this context, we may also add the rule position prevailing in the Departmental proceedings in the case of suspension being continued for a prolonged period without revocation. Rule of Law: 37. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the delinquent Employee. 40. The Government of Tamil Nadu had come out with an Order in G.O. Ms. No. 40, dated 30.1.1996, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.1.1996, regarding the provisions of the Rules, as to the suspension of State Government servants, embodied in Rule 17(e), following a decision rendered by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 3000-3002 of 1990 and also the implications of the Orders in G.O. Ms. No. 211, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.2.1980, dealing with the provision that the period of suspension should not exceed 3/6 months and that extension should be ordered by Head of Department or Government thereafter are not mandatory and have no binding force, thereby stipulating the circumstances under which revocation of suspension can be ordered. 41. Clause 6(iii) of the G.O. indicates that in cases where a Government servant has been suspended and the matter referred for investigation to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption for enquiry, the latter should complete the enquiry and send his report to Government through the Vigilance Commission within one year. 42. Sub-Clause (iv) is to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules; thereafter called as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1953, and then the present Rules, namely, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, having been experienced by the Administrative set up, the Order of Suspension made or deemed to have been made under the Rule may at any time be revoked by the Authority which made or is deemed to have made the Order or by any Authority to which that Authority is subordinate. When the dominant position of the rules from 1930 does not distinguish the conflicting interest of the delinquent Employee of revocation at any time and not categorizing the clauses, the Executive Order, which has been brought into action on 30.1.1996, has not been incorporated in the Rules till now. Therefore, the force of law as to the application of Rule is that notwithstanding the pendency of any case and the Government servant is placed under suspension, the Authority Competent is empowered to revoke the suspension at any point of time. Keeping the Government servant in a hanging position of prolonged suspension without revocation or review of such or....