2011 (11) TMI 875 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of suspension u/s Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in a criminal case u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenge of suspension order, non-consideration of revocation request, quashing of suspension order, principles of natural justice, prolonged suspension, revocation of suspension u/s 3(e)(5) of the Rules.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range filed an appeal against the order of suspension of the respondent, a Head Constable, in connection with a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent challenged the suspension order through writ petitions, seeking revocation which was not favorably considered by the authority, leading to the present appeal.

The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the suspension order, which prompted the appellant to file the current appeal. An interim stay was granted on the single Judge's order, which was later made absolute. Arguments were presented by both parties regarding the necessity of continued suspension during the criminal trial and the legality of quashing the suspension order.

The appellant argued that the serious nature of the misconduct warranted the suspension to maintain probity in public administration, citing guidelines and the need to uphold honest conduct. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the respondent was not directly involved in the alleged bribery incident, questioning the validity of the trap and emphasizing the violation of natural justice in prolonged suspension.

The Court noted the prolonged suspension of the respondent for five years without significant progress in the criminal trial, highlighting the absence of specific allegations against the respondent in the FIR. Referring to Rule 3(e)(5) of the Rules, the Court determined that revocation of suspension was appropriate pending trial, suggesting reassignment to a non-sensitive post to utilize the salary paid as subsistence allowance.

Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appeal without costs and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.