http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. MUNNIAPPAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R  D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Tamil  Nadu Administration  Tribunal, made  on  June 25, 1996 in OA No. 6457/95.      The respondent,  before being superannuated, was served with a suspension order which reads as under:      "Whereas  an   enquiry  into  grave      criminal offence  against  Thru  K.      Muniappan,     Divisional  Engineer      (National Highways),  Salem now  at      Paramkudi Highways  and Rural  Work      Division is contemplated."      The  respondent   challenged  the  said  order  in  the Tribunal, The Tribunal in the impugned order has stated that Rule 17  of the  Tamil Nadu  Civil Services (CCA) Rules does not empower  the appellant to suspend the respondent pending such  an  enquiry  and,  therefore,  the  action  taken  was illegal. The  question is:  whether the  view taken  by  the Tribunal is correct in law? Rule 17(e) (1) reads as under:      "(e)(1) A  member of  a Service may      be  placed  under  suspension  from      service, where      (i) an  enquiry into  grave  charge      against him  is contemplated, or is      pending: or      (iii) a  complaint against  him  of      any  criminal   offence  is   under      investigation of  trail and if such      suspension  is   necessary  in  the      public interest."      A reading  of the  rule clearly indicates that a member of a  service may  be placed  under suspension  from service where  an   enquiry  into   grave  charge   against  him  is "contemplated" or  "is pending";  or a complaint against him of any  criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such  suspension is  necessary in the public interest. It was alleged  that as  a result of concerted and confabulated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

action on the part of the employees an embezzlement of funds of the  Government, to  the tune  of Rs.  7.82  crores  took place. The  respondent is one of the officers working at the relevant time  as divisional Accountant at the office of the Divisional Engineer. Therefore, the authorities contemplated investigation into  the offences. Accordingly, he came to be suspended, pending investigation into grave charges.      Smt.  Chandan   Ramamurthi,  learned  counsel  for  the respondent is  still under  suspension would show that there is no grave charges against him and, therefore, he cannot be disabled to retire on attaining the superannuation. She also seeks to  bring to  our notice the against one of the person who was  also under suspension, the Tribunal has allowed the application and set aside the order of suspension, which was confirmed by  this Court.  Under  these  circumstances,  she contents that  it is  not a case warranting interference. We are unable  to agree  with the  learned counsel.  It is seen that the  Tribunal erroneously  has proceeded on the premise that the  Government has  no power to keep an employee under suspension pending  enquiry or  investigation. Rule 17(e)(1) itself postulates  that  an  officer  would  be  kept  under suspension   where    "enquiry   into   grave   charges   is contemplates". Under these circumstances, actual pendency is not a  pre-condition to  suspend an officer. Pending further investigation into  the offences  in  one  of  the  grounds. Unless and  until an  in-depth investigation  is done, there would be little scope to identify the persons involved i the crimes and  to take  follow up  action as  per law.  If  the officer is  allowed to retire, there would be no occasion to take effective  steps to  satisfactorily tackle the enormity of the  crime. It  is true  that there is time gap, but in a case involving  embezzlement  of  public  funds  by  several persons in  a concerted away, a thread bare investigation in required o  be undertaken  by the investigation officer and, therefore, in  the neuter  of the  situation,  it  would  be difficult  to  find  fault  with  the  authorities  for  not completing   investigation   expeditiously.   However,   the appellant is directed to have the investigation completed as expeditiously as  possible and take appropriate action on an urgent basis.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The OA is dismissed. No costs.