The
Secretary To Government & ANR Vs. K. Munniappan [1997] INSC 327 (21 March
1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Delay condoned.
Leave
granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Tamil Nadu Administration
Tribunal, made on June
25, 1996 in OA No.
6457/95.
The
respondent, before being superannuated, was served with a suspension order
which reads as under:
"Whereas
an enquiry into grave criminal offence against Thru K. Muniappan, Divisional
Engineer (National Highways), Salem now at Paramkudi Highways and Rural Work
Division is contemplated." The respondent challenged the said order in the
Tribunal, The Tribunal in the impugned order has stated that Rule 17 of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules does not empower the appellant to suspend
the respondent pending such an enquiry and, therefore, the action taken was
illegal. The question is: whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in
law? Rule 17(e) (1) reads as under:
"(e)(1)
A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service, where (i) an
enquiry into grave charge against him is contemplated, or is pending: or (iii)
a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation of trail
and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest." A reading of
the rule clearly indicates that a member of a service may be placed under
suspension from service where an enquiry into grave charge against him is
"contemplated" or "is pending"; or a complaint against him
of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension
is necessary in the public interest. It was alleged that as a result of
concerted and confabulated action on the part of the employees an embezzlement of
funds of the Government, to the tune of Rs. 7.82 crores took place. The
respondent is one of the officers working at the relevant time as divisional
Accountant at the office of the Divisional Engineer. Therefore, the authorities
contemplated investigation into the offences. Accordingly, he came to be
suspended, pending investigation into grave charges.
Smt. Chandan
Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the respondent is still under suspension would
show that there is no grave charges against him and, therefore, he cannot be
disabled to retire on attaining the superannuation. She also seeks to bring to
our notice the against one of the person who was also under suspension, the
Tribunal has allowed the application and set aside the order of suspension,
which was confirmed by this Court. Under these circumstances, she contents that
it is not a case warranting interference. We are unable to agree with the
learned counsel. It is seen that the Tribunal erroneously has proceeded on the
premise that the Government has no power to keep an employee under suspension
pending enquiry or investigation. Rule 17(e)(1) itself postulates that an
officer would be kept under suspension where "enquiry into grave charges
is contemplates". Under these circumstances, actual pendency is not a
pre-condition to suspend an officer. Pending further investigation into the
offences in one of the grounds.
Unless
and until an in-depth investigation is done, there would be little scope to
identify the persons involved i the crimes and to take follow up action as per
law. If the officer is allowed to retire, there would be no occasion to take
effective steps to satisfactorily tackle the enormity of the crime. It is true
that there is time gap, but in a case involving embezzlement of public funds by
several persons in a concerted away, a thread bare investigation in required o
be undertaken by the investigation officer and, therefore, in the neuter of the
situation, it would be difficult to find fault with the authorities for not
completing investigation expeditiously. However, the appellant is directed to
have the investigation completed as expeditiously as possible and take
appropriate action on an urgent basis.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The OA is dismissed.
No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
