M.Rajambal v. The Principal District Judge,Salem District,Salem – 636 007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.04.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARandTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANW.P.No.5388 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009M.Rajambal ..PetitionervsThe Principal District Judge,Salem District,Salem – 636 007 ..RespondentPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to theorder dated 27.8.2008 made in Roc.No.5457/A/2004 on the file of therespondent herein and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.T.MurugamanickamFor Respondents: Mr.P.Subramanian, Additional Government PleaderO R D E R (The order of the court was made by N.PAUL VASATHAKUMAR,J.)The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order ofsuspension dated 27.8.2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as aCopyist in the Judicial Ministerial Service on 20.3.1985 and she wasposted as Serishtadar Assistant in the Sub-Court, Sankari, on14.11.2000 and served in the said post till 20.6.2005. On 23.7.2004,the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, received an information fromthe Typist of the Sub-Court, Salem, that the Court fees stamp papersare missing from the case bundle, in which she was typing the decree.The learned Sub-Judge, on instruction from the Principal DistrictJudge, Salem, inquired into the matter and found that the Court feesstamp papers to the value of Rs.3,27,782.25ps were found missing fromvarious case bundles of that Court. The learned Judge, thereafter,issued a show cause notice to ten staff members of that Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu CivilServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the then Serishtadarand others. The learned Sub Judge, on 8.2.2006, initiatedproceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the saidRules. The charge alleged against the petitioner reads as follows:"You, Tmt.M.Rajambal, while working asSerishtadar Assistant, in Sub Court, Sankari, onreceipt of the court fee stamp papers filed alongwith the plaint for registering the same in RegisterNo.19 after initialing on the same by Serishtadar,you failed to count and calculate the value of thecourt fee stamp and record the same in the register.Thus, you failed to perform your duty. This act ofyou amounts an offence under Rule 17(b) of TamilNadu Civil Servants (Conduct and Appeal) Rules."The petitioner submitted explanation for the said charge memo on26.4.2006 and denied the charge.3.The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, sent a report tothe Principal District Judge, Salem. As per the directions given bythe Registry of this Court, the learned Principal District Judgeaddressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police to investigate thematter and take action against the culprits involved and to recoverthe stamp papers.4.The Superintendent of Police, Salem, directed registrationof First Information Report, pursuant to which Crime No.38/2004 wasregistered by the District Crime Branch, Salem. After investigation,the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem,gave a report on 25.8.2008 wherein the petitioner's involvement wasprima facie found. The petitioner was placed under suspension byorder dated 27.8.2008. The petitioner apprehending arrest, filed ananticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.21936 of 2008 before thisCourt and this Court on 10.9.2008 granted anticipatory bail to thepetitioner on condition to report before the respondent Police daily.The said condition was relaxed on 28.10.2008.5.The said order of suspension is challenged in this writpetition on the ground that the petitioner's name was not mentionedin the First Information Report registered in crime No.38 of 2004 andthe learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner's name is not stated by the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice in his report dated 25.8.2008 about her involvement and prayedfor setting aside of the suspension order.6. We have considered the facts pleaded as well as thesubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the lightof the order passed by the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. It is seen from the suspension order that a complaint hasbeen lodged by the Principal District Judge, Salem, to theSuperintendent of Police, Salem, on 9.11.2004 as directed by thisCourt in the Official Memorandum, for investigation of the theft ofCourt fees stamp papers in the Sub-Court, Sankari, to the tune ofRs.3,27,782.25ps, which was registered by the District Crime Branch,Salem, on 10.11.2004 in Crime No.38/2004 under Section 409 and 380I.P.C. and the same is pending investigation. The DeputySuperintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, in his reportdated 25.8.2008 stated that the investigation so far conductedreveals a prima facie case, in connection with the theft of the courtfees stamp papers, on file of the Sub-Court, Sankari, is made outagainst Tmt.M.Rajambal, formerly Assistant, Sub-Court, Sankari, nowHead Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Salem. Taking note of thesaid prima facie material, the respondent issued suspension orderunder Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline andAppeal) Rules.8.Rule 17(e) clearly states that a member of a service may beplaced under suspension from service, where an enquiry into gravecharges against him/her is contemplated, or is pending, or acomplaint against him/her of any criminal offence is underinvestigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in thepublic interest. For proper appreciation, Rule 17(e)(1) of the TamilNadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is extractedhereunder:“Rule 17(e)(1) A member of a service maybe placed under suspension from service, where,(i) an enquiry into grave charges againsthim is contemplated, or is pending; or(ii) a complaint against him or any criminaloffence is under investigation or trialand if such suspension is necessary in thepublic interest.” 9.The respondent is empowered to place the petitioner undersuspension either pending enquiry into grave charge or oncontemplation of charge or if any criminal offence is underinvestigation or trial on his satisfaction that public interestwarrants. As stated supra, against the petitioner, not only 17(b)charges framed under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline andAppeal) Rules, is pending, which is punishable with major penalties,but also the criminal investigation reveals the involvement of thepetitioner in the theft of court fee stamps to the tune ofRs.3,27,782.25 ps. The respondent thought fit to place thepetitioner under suspension until further orders. There is noperversity in the said order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the investigation report is not pointing out any proof againstthe petitioner is unsustainable as the respondent specifically statedin the order that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem, in hisreport dated 25.8.2008, found that there are prima facie materialsavailable against the petitioner and the said report is cited asreference number 16 in the impugned order. A court staff, proceededfor the theft of stamp papers, both under the service rules viz.,under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline andAppeal) Rules, and under the criminal law, where after investigationby the police, prima facie proof is made out against him/her, is notentitled to challenge the order of suspension, passed on publicinterest during pendency of charge and pending completion of theinvestigation.11.The power of the department to place an officer undersuspension, on public interest, pending enquiry into the disciplinaryproceeding/criminal investigation/trial, is well settled.(a)The Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1959Supreme Court 1342 (Hotel Imperial Vs. Hotel Workers' Union) inparagraph 10 held thus,“10.The first question therefore that fallsfor consideration is the extent of the power ofthe employer to suspend an employee under theordinary law of master and servant. It is nowwell settled that the power to suspend, in thesense of a right to forbid a servant to work, isnot an implied term in an ordinary contractbetween master and servant, and that such a powercan only be the creature either of a statutegoverning the contract, or of an express term inthe contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, theabsence of such power either as an express termin the contract or in the rules framed under somestatute would mean that the master would have nopower to suspend a workman and even if he does soin the sense that he forbids the employee towork, he will have to pay wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however,there is power to suspend either in the contractof employment or in the statute or the rulesframed thereunder, the suspension has the effectof temporarily suspending the relation of masterand servant with the consequence that the servantis not bound to render service and the master isnot bound to pay. These principles of theordinary law of master and servant are wellsettled and have not been disputed before us by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ either party. Reference in this connection maybe made to Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd.,1915-1 KB 698, Wallwork v. Fielding, 1922-2 KB66, Secretary of State v. Surendra Nath, ILR(1939) 1 Cal 46: (AIR 1938 Cal 759) and Rura Ramv. Divisional Superintendent, N.W.Railway, ILR1954-7 Punj 415: (AIR 1954 Punj 298).”(b)Again in the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 787(R.P.Kapur v. Union of India), the Supreme Court held that theauthority entitled to appoint a public servant would be entitled tosuspend him pending departmental enquiry into his conduct or pendingcriminal proceeding, which may eventually result in departmentalenquiry against him.12.In view of the above findings and in the light of thedecisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, we find no error in theimpugned order of suspension, warranting interference. There is nomerits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed inlimine. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of this writpetition will not preclude the petitioner from approaching therespondent for revocation of the order of suspension on any validground. If any representation to that effect is made by thepetitioner, it is for the respondent to consider the same and passorders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. ConnectedM.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarvr/vsiTo The Principal District Judge, Salem District, Salem – 636 007+ 1 c.c. to Mr. T. Murugamanikkam, Advocate. S.R.No.12725.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.12859.W.P.No.5388 of 2009RSI (CO)GSK 21.04.2009.