V. Elumalai vs The Inspector General of Registration and The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—By consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in proceedings No. 9076/A3/2003 dated 11.12.2003 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages with immediate effect.

Petitioner, who was the Joint Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, was suspended from service as per the order dated 11.12.2003 by the second respondent on the ground that crime No. 162 of 2003 was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai City, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for having demanded and accepted Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. The said amount was also recovered from him.

The impugned suspension order was earlier challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 22146 of 2004 and by order dated 1.10.2004, this Court without going into the merits of the claims of the petitioner, directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner''s representation dated 5.7.2004 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks. The request made by the petitioner for review of the suspension was rejected by order dated 4.1.2005. Thereafter petitioner filed another writ petitioner in W.P. No. 2713 of 2005 and challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 11.12.2003 and also the consequential order dated 4.1.2005 rejecting the request for review. This Court by order dated 1.2.2005 passed the following order,

Having regard to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, the rejection order passed by the respondents which has been impugned in the Writ petition cannot be faulted. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner''s suspension cannot be prolonged merely based on the pendency of the criminal case, which merits consideration. On that ground I feel that irrespective of the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the respondents can be directed to proceed against the petitioner by way of disciplinary action and conclude the same at an early date. For adopting such course, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection. In such circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to issue appropriate charge sheet to the petitioner and initiate disciplinary proceedings which shall be continued and concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs....

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition as could be seen from the affidavit and from the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the above direction issued by this Court, the respondents have not issued any charge memo and initiated disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner is kept under suspension indefinitely.

Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The suspension order is already upheld by this Court in the order made in W.P. No. 2713 of 2005, extracted above. If at all the respondents have not issued charge memo and proceeded departmentally as directed by this Court, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy for non-compliance of the said order. The inaction of the respondents cannot be a reason to quash the order of suspension, which the respondents are entitled to pass as per Rule 17(e)(i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, particularly when the allegations are serious and criminal case is also pending. Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, even on earlier occasion, this Court refused to quash the order of suspension.

There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.