B. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of suspension passed in G.O.Ms. No. 81, Agriculture (AA7) Department, dated 06.06.2011, under clause (2) of Sub -rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, citing a reason that a case against the petitioner in respect of criminal offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C. is under investigation.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order of suspension passed about 3 years ago, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of pendency of the investigation in C.C. No. 67 of 2012 and when there is not even departmental proceedings initiated, the respondents cannot keep the petitioner under suspension. However, the petitioner challenged the charge sheet filed under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120(B) I.P.C. by filing Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1589 of 2014 before this Court on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the letter dated 21.08.2008 was acted upon by the Deputy Manager, TANFED to prove the case of conspiracy against the petitioner. This Court, accepting the case of the petitioner, by detailed order dated 25.07.2014, quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 67 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kulithalai, Karur, holding that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in the present case do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. Therefore, as on today, since no criminal case is pending nor the department initiated any disciplinary proceedings, the respondents on their own ought to have revoked the suspension order. As they did not do so, the petitioner has come to this Court with this Writ Petition to quash the suspension order.

(3.) IN reply to the above submission, Mr.T.S.Mohammad Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that after the Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 25.07.2014, a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court and the same has been numbered as S.L.P. No. 23309 of 2014. That apart, the petitioner has given room for initiation of investigation, since he has issued an order to supply 10 MT of Urea and 20 MT of DAP (subsidized fertilizer meant for the farmers) to Thanthoni Agro Engineering and Service Co -operative Centre Ltd., while he was serving as Assistant Director of Agriculture (Quality Control) in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trichy, without there being any jurisdiction, at the cost of Rs. 54,06,906.30 and sold to the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Limited, Karur and Balmer Lawrie Company, Chennai, on commercial rate for industrial use and delivered through the same lorry at the cost of Rs. 1,87,70,167.50. He alleged to have misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 1,33,63,261.20 by not bringing into the account of the said society. Therefore, he was placed under suspension and criminal case was also initiated under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120(b) I.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge sheet was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1589 of 2014 on the ground of no evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the department has filed Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension should not be interfered.