JAWAHAR SANTHAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Challenge in this writ petition is to the Order of suspension passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in G.O. (2D) No. 115, Public (Special A) Department, dated 24.12.2008.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited as a Deputy Collector by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1985 and he is now as a District Revenue Officer, Karur, (under suspension). When certain juniors were promoted to the post of Indian Administrative Service (in short I.A.S) with effect from 21.5.1995 overlooking his name, he had filed Original Application in O.A. No. 169 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). THE said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal on 7.2.1995 and a direction was issued to the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of IAS without reference to the belated order of censure imposed on him. Challenging the competence of a single Member to decide the matter, the Government filed a Review Application No. 70 of 1995. THE Tribunal, by order dated 26.6.2002, allowed the said Review Application filed by the Government. As against the same, the petitioner filed a special leave petition in S.L.P. No. 6059 of 1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which remitted the matter back to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits.

(3.) ON 23.12.2008, a false case has been foisted against him on the ground that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 6,000/-. In this connection, a Criminal Case in Crime No. 37 of 2008 was registered and he was remanded to judicial custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur and detained in Sub-jail, Karur on 23.12.2008 and released on bail on 26.12.2008. Based on the above, the first respondent, by his proceedings dated 24.12.2008, placed the petitioner under suspension with a condition that during the period of suspension, the headquarters will be at Karur and he shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission from the Government. He was also asked to vacate the quarters on 3.1.2009. Though he had sought for extension of time to surrender the quarters, the same was refused. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on the ground that without application of mind and subjective satisfaction of the first respondent, the impugned order of suspension has been passed, with a mala fide intention to deprive his rights to get promotion as IAS Officer and in view of the fact that;