- (1.)MR. R. Janakiramulu, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
(2.)THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned order of the second respondent made in Ref No. 4155/2009/E dated 31.08.2009.3.1. Mr. T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension on two grounds, viz., (i) he has been suspended on the ground of his implication in a criminal case for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act vide the impugned order passed by Regional Manager, who himself has been implicated as one of the accused (A1) in the very same case and as such the impugned order is unsustainable and (ii) the first accused, who has passed the impugned order of suspension against the petitioner, is not yet suspended on the basis of his implication in the very same criminal case for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the impugned order would amount to selective suspension order and the same is unsustainable.3.
2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the First Information Report registered in the criminal case, wherein, the Regional Manager by name Nainar Mohammed has been implicated as A1.4. THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is contended that the petitioner, having implicated in a case for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of demand of bribe, is liable to be suspended. It is further contended that merely because the other accused, viz., the Regional Manager has not been suspended, the petitioner cannot take advantage over it.5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.6. THE fact remains that the impugned order of suspension was passed against the petitioner by the Regional Manager of the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited mainly on the ground of implication of the petitioner in a criminal case for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is seen from the First Information Report that the very same officer, viz., Mr. Nainar Mohamed, Regional Manager, who has passed the impugned order, has also been implicated as one of the accused (A1) and such being the position, he is not entitled to pass the order of suspension against the petitioner who has been arrayed as A5 in the very same case. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Regional Manager, who has been arrayed as A1, has not been suspended and as such, this Court is of the considered view that there is much force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order would amount to selective suspension.In view of the above said reasons, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order and accordingly, the order passed by the second respondent in Ref No.4155/2009/E dated 31.08.2009 is herby set aside. It is open to the respondents to take fresh action in the manner known to law.This petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.