V. Murugan vs The Superintendent Engineer and The Chief Engineer

T. Raja, J.—The present writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the prayer of the Appellant.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

The Appellant, who was the writ Petitioner before the learned Single Judge, while serving as a Junior Engineer-Grade I in the Respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was placed under suspension in public interest by order dated 24.04.2010, for the reason that he was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 11/2010 u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the case was under investigation, the Respondent department thought fit to place him under suspension and accordingly, he was placed under suspension by order dated 24.04.2010 by the Superintendent Engineer.

The said order of suspension was challenged on the sole ground that when the Regulation 12 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee''s Discipline and Appeal Regulations, specifically provides the competent authority to pass the suspension pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, as the impugned order of suspension was not issued by the competent authority as specified by Regulations 12, on the contrary, the Appellate Authority has passed the suspension order, the same is liable to be quashed and consequently, the Appellant is entitled to restore in his service.

The learned Single Judge rejected the Appellant''s contention placing reliance under Regulations 6(b) and 9(a), which is extracted as under:

6(b) Competency of authorities superior to disciplinary authority:

Where in any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under this regulation, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under this regulation in respect of the case.

c) The fact that a lower authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty in any case shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his jurisdiction under this regulation in respect of the same case.

d) The order of a higher authority imposing or declining to impose in any case a penalty under this regulation shall supersede any order passed by a lower authority in respect of the same case.

e) The fact that a lower authority has dropped a charge against a person as not proved shall not debar a higher authority from reviving it for reasons to be recorded in writing and taking suitable action on the charge so revivied.

Regulation 9(a), (b) and (e) of the TNEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations:

9(a): a member of a class of service may be placed under suspension from service, where (I) an enquiry into grave charges against him contemplated, or is pending, or (ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension if necessary in the public interest.

9(b): An employee who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under this regulation.

9(e): An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation 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.

A plain reading of the above said rules, do not find any fault with theimpugned order. Under Regulation 9(a) of the TNEB Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, an employee can be placed under suspension in public interest if there is a complaint pending against him for any criminal offence under investigation. Since in the present case, the Appellant was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 11/2010 u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the reason that the said case is under investigation, there is no legal bar in placing the Appellant under suspension, since the lower authority will have no jurisdiction to proceed in this case any further.

When the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued before the learned Single Judge stating that the Appellant can be suspended only by the competent authority and not by any other persons including the appellate authority on the basis of the principles that if an Act obliges the authority toast in a particular manner, then it can be done only in that manner and not in any other manner. While dealing with the said submission, the learned Single Judge referring to Regulations 9(a) and (b) and 8(g) has finally come to the conclusion that as per the said Regulations, if the disciplinary action itself can be initiated by an officer in superior rank, then the said officer can place an employee under suspension. Further, in the present case, the suspension is a deemed suspension in view of the fact that the Appellant has been kept under custody beyond 48 hours, therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the order placing the Appellant under suspension by the appellate authority/Superintending Engineer, does not suffer any illegality.

Finally, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that as per the Regulations, if the disciplinary action itself can be initiated by an officer in superior rank, it goes without saying that the said officer can also place an employee under suspension. In view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Government of A.P. and Another Vs. N. Ramanaiah, , the Appellant can always appeal to the higher authority other than the first Respondent or even to the first Respondent by making appropriate review of suspension, but certainly for grave charges under which the Appellant was placed under suspension, he cannot be restored to service pending finalization of the criminal case registered against him.

In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present case filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected MP (MD) No. 1 of 2010 is closed.