Judgment:
ORDER
K.N. Basha, J.
1. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka. No. 20424/V1/E1/09 dated 22.04.2009 and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
3. Mr. P. Rajendiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order of suspension passed contrary to the provision under Rule 17(e)(1)(i)(ii) of the T.N.C.S. (D&A;) Rules to the effect that the said order is passed not in the public interest as in the impugned order it is not stated that the suspension order is passed against the petitioner in the public interest. It is contended that before issuing the order of suspension that in the public interest must be satisfied and as the respondent has not stated that the suspension order is in the public interest the same is unsustainable in law. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R. Maheswari v. District Elementary Educational Officer reported in 2008(5) MLJ 635.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned suspension order. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that admittedly, the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case as the petitioner has been mentioned as A-15 in the First Information Report and in that case investigation is pending and as such the petitioner is liable to be suspended as per the provision under Rule 17(e)(1)(i)(ii) of the T.N.C.S. (D&A;) Rules.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned order of suspension dated 22.04.2009.
6. The main question involved in this matter is that whether the impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law in view of non-mentioning of the satisfaction of involving public interest by the respondent herein.
7. Before proceeding to consider the question involved in this matter, it is relevant to refer the provision under Rule 17(e)(1)(i) and (ii) which reads hereunder:
17(e) Conditions under which a member of a Civil Service be placed under Suspension:
(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where
(i) an enquiry to grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending ; or
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
8. The above said provision makes it crystal clear that before issuing any suspension order, the authority concerned should be satisfied about the public interest involved in the matter warranting the issuance of suspension order against the delinquent officer. A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.04.2009 reveals that there is absolutely no mention about the satisfaction of public interest involved in this matter by the respondent herein and as such the impugned order is unsustainable in law.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R. Maheswari v. District Elementary Educational Officer reported in 2008(5) MLJ 635 wherein, this Court held that,
6. ...It is for the authority to analyse various facts and materials available so as to assess independently as to whether the continuation of public servant on duty without an order of suspension shall be to the detriment of the interest of public or not. If only, the authority comes to such a conclusion that an order of suspension is necessary in the public interest, then the authority can pass such an order of suspension. A plain reading of the order under challenge in this writ petition would go to show that there was no such conclusion arrived t by the authority. Even in the counter, it is not the case of the first respondent that the impugned order came to be passed in the interest of public. It is to be seen that even in cases where the public interest is involved, in a routine fashion, such an order of suspension should not be passed, because the provision given a clear indication that such suspension should be necessary. In this case, nothing of that sort is found at all.
I respectfully agree with the principle laid down by the learned Judge in the above said decision and the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in this case also, as already pointed out, in the impugned order of suspension dated 22.04.2009 there is absolutely no mention about the satisfaction of the public interest involved in this matter warranting the issue of suspension order against the petitioner herein. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of suspension passed by the respondent herein in Na.Ka. No. 20424/V1/E1/09 dated 22.04.2009 is hereby quashed. However, it is open to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu C.S. (D&A;) Rules.
This petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.