(1.) IN majority of these writ petitions, the petitioners who are public servants were accused of taking bribes, caught red -handed in traps and are facing charges before the Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When they were placed under suspension by the competent authority, they have come to this court challenging the orders of suspension. In most of cases, interim stay of suspension have been granted giving some reasons for the orders. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of their contentions, it is necessary to set the tone for dealing with the cases of public servants involved in corruption.
(2.) THE Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 in paragraph 12 had observed as follows:
(3.) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioners are employees of different departments of Government and public sector units. They are faced with actions taken by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The cases registered against them relate to corruption charges and are pending trial before the Special Courts. In view of those cases, they were placed under suspension in terms of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or under the Certified Standing Order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board or under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act or under the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board service regulations. The petitioners have approached this court challenging the suspension orders on untenable grounds.