B. Meenakshi Sundaram vs The Agriculture Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government

T. Raja, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of suspension passed in G.O.Ms. No. 81, Agriculture (AA7) Department, dated 06.06.2011, under clause (2) of Sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, citing a reason that a case against the petitioner in respect of criminal offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C. is under investigation.

Assailing the impugned order of suspension passed about 3 years ago, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of pendency of the investigation in C.C. No. 67 of 2012 and when there is not even departmental proceedings initiated, the respondents cannot keep the petitioner under suspension. However, the petitioner challenged the charge sheet filed under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120(B) I.P.C. by filing Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1589 of 2014 before this Court on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the letter dated 21.08.2008 was acted upon by the Deputy Manager, TANFED to prove the case of conspiracy against the petitioner. This Court, accepting the case of the petitioner, by detailed order dated 25.07.2014, quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 67 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kulithalai, Karur, holding that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in the present case do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. Therefore, as on today, since no criminal case is pending nor the department initiated any disciplinary proceedings, the respondents on their own ought to have revoked the suspension order. As they did not do so, the petitioner has come to this Court with this Writ Petition to quash the suspension order.

Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court being satisfied with the prim a fa ci e case made out, by order dated 12.11.2014, has granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the suspension order. But even after the order of suspension was stayed by this Court, the respondents refused to reinstate the petitioner. On this basis, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

In reply to the above submission, Mr.T.S.Mohammad Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that after the Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 25.07.2014, a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court and the same has been numbered as S.L.P. No. 23309 of 2014. That apart, the petitioner has given room for initiation of investigation, since he has issued an order to supply 10 MT of Urea and 20 MT of DAP (subsidized fertilizer meant for the farmers) to Thanthoni Agro Engineering and Service Co-operative Centre Ltd., while he was serving as Assistant Director of Agriculture (Quality Control) in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trichy, without there being any jurisdiction, at the cost of Rs. 54,06,906.30 and sold to the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Limited, Karur and Balmer Lawrie Company, Chennai, on commercial rate for industrial use and delivered through the same lorry at the cost of Rs. 1,87,70,167.50. He alleged to have misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 1,33,63,261.20 by not bringing into the account of the said society. Therefore, he was placed under suspension and criminal case was also initiated under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120(b) I.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge sheet was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1589 of 2014 on the ground of no evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the department has filed Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension should not be interfered.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

This Court finds no justification whatsoever to support the impugned order for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 81, Agriculture AA7 Department, dated 06.06.2011 citing one sole reason of investigation in the criminal charge booked under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120(b) I.P.C. has been pending for consideration. But the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the alleged criminal charges, has taken up the matter before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1589 of 2014 on the ground that there was no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner for the alleged misappropriation. This Court also accepting the case of the petitioner that there was no evidence to show that the letter dated 21.08.2008 was acted upon by the Deputy Manager, TANFED to prove the case of conspiracy against the petitioner and by applying the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 S CC (Crl) 426 wherein it is held that "uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused", given a finding that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in the present case do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. Therefore, admittedly, the criminal case registered against the petitioner is no longer in existence and till date no departmental proceedings has been initiated nor any charge memo has been issued against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner has necessarily to fall to ground. Hence, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.