M. Jeyasri vs The Chief Engineer (Distribution), The Superintending Engineer and The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No. 1695 of 2010,

wherein a learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and up held the order of suspension passed against the Appellant from the services of

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, atUppiliyapuram, Tiruchirappalli District.

The case of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the Appellant, who is employed as Junior Engineer, Grade-I, was placed

under suspension by the third Respondent on 16.07.2009 on the ground that she was arrested on 15.07.2009 by the Vigilance and Anti

Corruption wing, Trichy for demanding and accepting bribe. The amount said to have been demanded and accepted as bribe by the Appellant is

Rs. 1,500/- . The said order of suspension was passed under Regulation No. 9 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Discipline and

Appeal Regulations. The Appellant earlier filed W.P.(MD). No. 10386 of 2009 and prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to

permit the Appellant to join duty by invoking the said Regulation 9(e) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee''s Discipline and Appeal

Regulations.

The said Writ Petition was disposed of by giving direction to the second Respondent to consider there presentation of the Appellant dated

23.09.2009 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. The second Respondent, by order dated 03.11.2009, rejected the

request of the Appellant seeking restoration in service and stated that consequent on trap and arrest by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, she was

placed under suspension and due to the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No. 17 of2009, the order of suspension cannot be revoked. In the

criminal case registered, charge sheet is also filed against the Appellant under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

Aggrieved over the said order dated 03.11.2009, the Appellant again filed W.P.(MD). No. 12376 of 2009. This Court, by order dated

30.11.2009, disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberty to the Appellant to approach the first Respondent afresh. Again, the Appellant

approached the first Respondent seeking reinstatement in service, which was rejected by the first Respondent on 03.11.2009. The said order of

the first Respondent reads as follows;-

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Office of the Superintending Engineer,

Trichy,

Elecy. Distn. Circle/metro/Trichy.

Memo. No. 699-1/Admn.IV/A.1/F. Doc/2009,

dt.3.11.2009

Sub: Public Servants-TNEB-Demand and Obtained of pribe by Tmty.M. Jeyasri, Junior Engineer O/o the Junior Engineer/O&M/Uppiliyapuram

under suspension -Representation Received - Regarding.

****

The trap case was registered on 15.07.2009against Tmty.M. Jeyasri, Junior Engineer O/o the Junior Engineer/O&M/Uppiliyapuram under

Suspension which is under investigation by Vigilance and Anti-corruption/Trichy.

If the accused Tmty.M. Jeyasri, Junior Engineer, O/o the Junior Engineer/O&M/Uppiliyapuram is reinstated into service at this stage, there is every

possibility that she will threaten and tamper the witnesses by using her official position Examination of Witness is yet to be completed in this case.

It this regard the following instruction has been given by the Government in their letter No. 47685/A/W-94-10 P & AR Department, dated

05.11.1996, regarding the reinstatement of Government Servants who are involved in corruption case.

(1) ""If the accused officers arrested red-handed in the act of demand and or acceptance of bribe are released from the suspension and allowed to

rejoin duty the Government''s objective of maintaining probity in the public administration will be belittled"".

(2) ""Further it would be embarrassing to have a public servant who is involved in a CriminalCase which would not only affect the morale of others

in service, but also would act asdisincentive for the public servants, who are committed to honest conduct in public service.

(3) ""It is considered that it is undesirable to keep on duty the individuals facing corrupt charges"".

In the light of the above instructions that the suspension of the accused Tmty. M. Jeyasri, Junior Engineer, O/o the Junior

Engineer/O&M/Uppiliyapuram may not be revoked at this stage

On 29.01.2010, the Appellant again submitted are presentation for reviewing the order of suspension and prayed for restoration in service. No

order having been passed, the Appellant filed W.P.(MD). No. 1695 of 2010 and challenged the order of suspension dated 16.07.2009 and the

consequential rejection order passed by the second Respondent dated 03.11.2010 and prayed for a direction to the second Respondent to

restore her in service.

The learned Single Judge, on considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, by order dated 01.11.2010, dismissed the Writ

Petition. Challenging the said order dated 01.11.2010, the Appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal.

The contention raised in the Writ Appeal is that the suspension order having been issued on 16.07.2009, the same is bound to be set aside,

since the criminal case is not disposed of and the prolonged suspension is bad in law.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant.

It is an admitted case that the Appellant, who is a Junior Engineer, Grade-I, employed in the first Respondent Board, is involved in a Vigilance

and Anti Corruption case and charge sheet is pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the competent Criminal Court and the

case is under trial on the file of the Special Judge for Corruption Act and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. A person, who is facing criminal

charge, can be placed under suspension or not is no longer resintegra. In a given case, the department can review the order of suspension on the

facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the public interest. An employee cannot demand the revocation of suspension as a matter

of right.

10.(a) In W.A. No. 1114 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007,aDivision Bench of this Court [SJMJ as he then was and NPVJ], in the case of the

Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. N. Shanmugasundaram, set aside the order of a learned Single Judge quashing an order of

suspension and allowed the Writ Appeal and upheld the order of suspension on similar ground.

(b) A Division Bench of this Court [NPVJ and NKKJ] in the case of M. Rajammal v. Principal District Judge reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 212 held

that Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, contemplates that a member of a service may be placed under

suspension from service, where an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending or a complaint against him or any criminal

offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.

(c) In the above said Judgment, the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others Vs. Hotel

Workers'' Union, and in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, were followed and upheld the similar order of suspension.

(d) In W.A. No. 1818 of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, a Division Bench of this Court [RBIJ and NPVJ], in the case of S. Jeevanantham v. the

Government of Tamil Nadu and others considered an identical issue and confirmed the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition,

which was filed challenging the order of suspension.

(e) Suspension orders were also upheld in the case of D. Gnanasekaran and M. Anantharamasubramanian Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, and

in the case of S. Jeyasingh Rajan v. President, Kalloorani Panchayat reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 59.

(f) The Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, , upheld the order of suspension of a bank

employee, who was facing criminal offence involving moral turpitude. In the said Judgment, the order of the High Court, Allahabad, quashing the

order of suspension was set aside and the appeal filed by the bank was allowed.

(g) The Supreme Court in the decision in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 458 held that corruption in the

administration has hampered the development of the Nation and the persons, who involved in the corruption cases, should be dealt with firmly and

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. In Paragraph No. 7, it is held thus:

Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the in crease. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building

activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption 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. See: Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, : Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, and Pradip

Chandra Parija and Others Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others,

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 criminal case, that too, in a bribe case, she has no right to seek revocation of the suspension order, merely because the

criminal trial is pending for more thane year. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board passed orders rejecting the request of the Appellant seeking

revocation of suspension order more than once.

Hence, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the

Appellant, who indulged in corrupt practices and who is facing criminal trial in a case registered in CR. No. 17 of 2009 under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

We are conscious of the fact that the Hon''ble Chief Justice of India has already given administrative instructions to all the High Courts to

ensure that cases in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be fast tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis both at the High

Court and District levels. Since the Appellant is facing criminal case and charge sheet was also filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

as stated supra and having regard to the direction issued by the Hon''ble Chief Justice of India, as aforesaid, we direct the Special Judge for

Corruption Cases cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, to complete the trial arising out of CR. No. 17 of 2009, Vigilance and

Anticorruption, Trichy and dispose of the same before the end of June 2011 and send are port regarding disposal of the said criminal case to the

Registry of this Court before 8th July 2011.

In the result, the order dated 29.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No. 1695 of 2010 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed in limine. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.