B. Ramesh vs The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk and Others

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The petitioner is an Agriculture Officer in the 2nd respondent. On the first information given in writing by one Mr. Mahalingam, a former employee of the 2nd respondent department, a case in Crime No. 12 of 2015 came to be registered on 19.02.2015 against (1) Raman, Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent, (2) Pathirappan, Superintendent in the office of the 2nd respondent, (3) M. Ramesh, Agriculture Officer in the office of the 2nd respondent and (4) Mrs. Kavibharathi, Joint Director of Agriculture, Coimbatore, initially, for alleged offences under Section 419 of IPC and Section 66-D of The Information Technology Act, 2000. In the above said case, the petitioner has been arrayed as the 3rd Accused.

After the registration of the above said FIR, during investigation, the petitioner alone was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While so, the 1st respondent by order dated 28.03.2015 in DCS:1/(1)/39874/2015, placed the petitioner under suspension as per Rule 17(e) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules with effect from 27.03.2015. Subsequently, an amendment to the aforesaid order was issued on 21.07.2015 thereby stating that the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 27.03.2014. Challenging the above said order of suspension, the petitioner is now before this court with this writ petition.

When the matter came up for admission on 08.04.2015, this court passed the following order:--

"The Commissioner of Police is directed to get the following information and furnish the same to this court on or before 22.04.2015.

The Special Sub Inspector, Cyber Crime Cell, Coimbatore City Police, is directed to inform as to whether investigation is over in Crime No. 12/2014 on the file of the Cyber Crime Cell at Coimbatore and if the investigation is not over, the aforesaid authority is directed to state the stage of investigation and if the investigation is over, the aforesaid authority is directed to furnish the final report."

The learned Special Government Pleader, would, on instructions, from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Coimbatore City, submitted that investigation in Crime No. 12 of 2015 has been over and a final report has also been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore, against the petitioner (A1), Mr. R. Raman (A2) and one P. Sakthivel (A3) for offences under Sections 120(B) and 419 of IPC and Sections 43, 66, 66D of IT Act. The learned Special Government Pleader has produced a Xerox copy of the said final report for perusal of this court. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the final report has been taken on file as CC No. 14 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when there were three other persons viz., Mr. R. Raman (A1), Mr. Pathirappan (A2), and Tmt. Kavibharathi (A4) arrayed as accused in the FIR apart from the petitioner (A3). According to him, the name of the persons viz., Mr. Pathirappan and Mrs. Kavibharathi, whose name were found in the FIR, did not find place in the charge sheet. On completing the investigation, final report has been filed only against the petitioner - Mr. B. Ramesh arraying him as A1 and Mr. R. Raman arraying him as A2 and also implicating one Mr. P. Sakthivel, who was the Assistant, as A3. The name of the persons viz., Pathirappan and Mrs. Kavibharathi were omitted in the charge sheet. While so the petitioner alone was selectively suspended and the respondents have not chosen to place the other persons. Hence, the order of suspension of the petitioner in a selective manner is malafide, arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the decisions of the Apex Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing the order of suspension passed against the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner alone was arrested pursuant to the investigation and since he was kept under Rule for more than forty-eight hours, invoking the power under Section 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent.

I have carefully considered submissions made on either side.

The aforesaid facts would disclose that originally there were three other accused persons apart from the petitioner, who were also employees in the Agriculture Department. On completing investigation, final report has been filed against the petitioner arraying him as A1, Mr. R. Raman arraying him as A2 and implicating one Mr. Sakthivel, who is also an employee, in the agriculture department, as A3. The investigating officer, omitted the name of the persons viz., Pathirappan and Mrs. Kavibharathi, whose name were found in the FIR, in the final report. While so the petitioner alone was placed under suspension and no action has been taken as against the other accused. Similarly, Mr. Sakthiel, who has been implicated as A3 in the final report, was also not placed under suspension and no action has also been taken against him. Hence, I am in full agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent being State cannot act arbitrarily against its employees. The respondent cannot resort to selectively suspend its employees. It is a different matter if the other accused were also placed under suspension. In the absence of not placing under the other employees under suspension, who allegedly involved in the crime, I am of the view that the suspension of the petitioner alone is arbitrary and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a selective suspension is opposed to the decision of the Apex Court in K. Sukhendar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (1999) 10 JT 237 : (2000) 1 LLJ 474 : (1999) 2 SCALE 612 : (1999) 6 SCC 257 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 1088 wherein it has been held as follows:--

"6. The appellant was placed under suspension on 6.2.1997 by an order passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him. This order was subsequently replaced by another order passed on 12.3.1997, in which it was clearly spelt out that disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were not at all contemplated, but since he was involved in Crime case No. 327 of 1996 registered under Sections 468, 471, etc. by Anakapalli Town Police Station, he was being placed under suspension. This matter is still under investigation by the C.I.D. and a charge-sheet has not yet been filed in the case.

Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior I.A.S. officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the Police since 1.12.1996 when the F.I.R. was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two and half year has passed. We do not know how long will it take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the Service hierarchy, would be taken.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the suspension order dated 12.3.1997 with the direction that the appellant shall be put back to duty and shall be paid all his arrears of salary upto date minus the suspension allowance, if any, already paid to him, leaving it open to the State Government to consider the feasibility of placing the appellant under suspension, if and when a charge sheet is filed by the C.I.D."

In view of my aforesaid conclusion, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed. However, if the respondent department chooses to place the other employees, who allegedly involved in the crime also under suspension, they are at liberty to place the petitioner under suspension. Without placing the others under suspension, the order placing the petitioner alone under suspension is arbitrary and illegal.

At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the petitioner alone was kept under custody, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner was placed under suspension.

In this case, it is not known as to why the others were not arrested when there were three other persons shown in the FIR as accused. Now, apart from the petitioner, two other persons, who are also employees in the Agriculture Department, are facing the prosecution in C.C. No. 14 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore. Hence, the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner was placed under suspension as he was kept in judicial custody is not a valid reason to allow to continue the suspension, particularly, when there are two other employees also are arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 14 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner is set aside. Since the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is set aside, the respondents are directed to pay the salary and other benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, this would not preclude the respondents from placing under suspension all the employees. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. No costs.