- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The respondent was employed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Sub division. On 27/05/1995 while he was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirapally for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and one alarm clock from one Thiru Syed Ibrahim for arranging to include two persons and exclude two persons in a theft case. Criminal Case No. 2/95 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent. By order. dated 22/08/1995, the respondent was placed under suspension from service until further orders.
(3.) After the investigation in the said criminal case, chargesheet has been filed against the respondent on 10/10/1996, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and special Judge, pudukottai in respect of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2 read with section 13 (1 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent filed O. A. No. 1832 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administration tribunal (hereinafter referred to as The tribunal') wherein he prayed for setting aside the order of suspension on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed against him. The said O. A. No. 1832 of 1996 has been allowed by the tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 24/07/1996 and the order of suspension has been set aside. The tribunal has held that the premise on which the order of suspension was passed is no longer in existence since the stage of investigation is already over and a charge sheet has been filed before the court of Law and as such the order of suspension cannot survive any further and has been set aside on that ground. We are unable to appreciate the said direction of the tribunal in setting aside the order of suspension. By the order of suspension dated 22/08/1995 the respondent was placed under suspension till further orders. The said order was not confined to the period during which the investigation was in progress. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent on the basis that a prima facie case about the commission of the offices mentioned in the charge sheet has been made out. This means that as a result of the filing of the charge sheet the reason for keeping the respondent under suspension continues and it cannot be said that the said reason has ceased to exist after the filing of the charge sheet. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the tribunal.;