CoramThe Honourable Mr v. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. Thiru

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24-8-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice K. VENKATARAMANWRIT PETITION No.49122 of 2006andM.P.No.1 of 2006P.Jeyabalakrishnan .. PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. Thiru K.Ashok Vardan Shetty, Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling forrecords from the file of the first respondent made inRef.No.G.O.(1D) No.725 dated 11.12.2006 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan, S.C. For Mrs.Narmada Sampath For Respondents : Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, Addl.Advocate General. ... O R D E RThe petitioner has come forward with the present WritPetition challenging the order of suspension passed against himby the first respondent dated 11.12.2006.2. The short facts which is necessary for the disposalof the present Writ petition is as follows:-(a) The petitioner has been working in Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Departments for the past 25 years with an outstandingperformance and with the appreciation of senior officers. Hejoined as Group-I Officer in Tamil Nadu State cadre throughTNPSC selection process in 1989 and he has been working in RuralDevelopment Department initially as Divisional DevelopmentOfficer, Personal Assistant to Collector, Assistant Director ofTown Panchayats and on promotion as Joint Director in RuralDevelopment Department since 1996. (b) The further case of the petitioner is that thethen Secretary to Government Smt.Santha Sheela Nair, I.A.S.,Director Thiru M.Rajaram, I.A.S., the then District Collectorsof Coimbatore District Thiru N.Muruganantham, I.A.S., ThiruS.Kosalaraman, I.A.S, Thiru Dr.K.C.Khandeswal, Advisor and Head,Bio-energy Group, Government of India, New Delhi and ThiruK.Chakar Borty, Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi haveappreciated and commended his performance and have certified hissincerity and integrity. (c) The further case of the petitioner is that thereexists a dispute between himself and his wife and cases arepending against her for divorce on the ground of adultery andcruelty. The petitioner's father-in-law is a very close friendof the second respondent and he is now holding the post ofSecretary. The second respondent is pressurizing the petitionerto join his wife. Further, the petitioner's father-in-law isopenly threatening him that he will put him in jail using thepower of his friend, namely, the second respondent. While so,the present order of suspension has been passed against him bythe second respondent only with a mala fide intention.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the secondrespondent wherein it has been denied that out of malice anorder of suspension has been passed. Further, it has beenaverred that the order of suspension was passed on the basis ofmaterial evidence of grave irregularities and there is no malicein it.4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denyingthe various contentions raised by the second respondent.5. On the above pleadings, Mr.Vijay Narayan, thelearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contendedthat the second respondent has passed the impugned order with amala fide intention to satisfy the petitioner's father-in-law,who has been his close friend for the past 20 years. Further,the learned senior counsel submitted that when the secondrespondent was serving as Sub Collector, Hosur in the year 1985,he helped the petitioner's father-in-law to obtain licence torun a theatre and the name of the second respondent is alsofinds in the stone laid at the time of opening the theatre. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned senior counsel further submitted that the secondrespondent used to attend important family functions of hisfather-in-law. Using that friendship, the second respondent haspersuaded the petitioner to join his wife and threatened that incase if he does not do so, he will take severe action againstthe petitioner. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument ofthe learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is thatthe impugned order of suspension has been passed only with malafide intention, since the second respondent is being the friendof his father-in-law. 6. Per contra, Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, the learnedAdditional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.GeethaTamaraiselvan, Government Advocate, appearing for therespondents 1 and 2 contended that Thiru Y.S.Rammoorthy, thefather-in-law of the petitioner is an acquaintance but not afriend of the second respondent. The impugned order has beenpassed by the second respondent, not out of malice, but becauseof the irregularities committed by the petitioner and hence, theorder of suspension need not be set aside.7. I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, thelearned Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondents.8. Normally, an order of suspension could beinterfered with only (a) if the authority who passed the orderhas no jurisdiction to do so; (b) if it is tainted with malafide; or (c) if there is any violation of the statutoryprovision. Admittedly, in the case on hand, it is not the caseof the petitioner that the respondents have no authority orjurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. Equally, it isnot the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has beenpassed in violation of any statutory provisions. But, thedefinite case of the petitioner is that the impugned order hasbeen passed with mala fide intention by the second respondent.9. Now, let me see whether the petitioner has made outa prima facie case in establishing that there is an element ofmala fide in passing the order of suspension against thepetitioner. The petitioner in para 7 of his affidavit hasstated as follows:-"My father-in-law is very close friend of the2nd respondent and he is now holding the post ofSecretary. the friendship is so strong to theextent that my wife, daughter of Y.S.Rammoorthycould influence and get support of the 2ndrespondent for an unauthorised and unlawfulpurpose. Whereas the 2nd respondent, ever sincefrom the date of his joining has been threatening https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ both through letter of Director and over phonepressurizing me to join with my wife. He ismisusing his official powers to please his closefriend Thiru Y.S.Rammoorthjy of Hosur. When the2nd respondent was serving in Hosur as SubCollector in the year 1985, my father-in-law hadproblems to get a Licence to run his CinemaTheatre, ultimately it could be obtained only withthe help of the respondent. Since then they arevery close friends. He also attended familyfunctions of my father-in-law. I submit that mywife and my father-in-law are giving indirectthreat through their family friend saying that Iwill be suspended on false allegations. My father-in-law are giving indirect threat through theirfamily friend saying that I will be suspended onfalse allegations. My father-in-law has beenopenly threatening me through my brother and myfriends, that I would be suspended and put intojail using the powers of his friend the respondentherein. I have represented this matter to theSecretary and Director through a confidentialletter sent on 30.7.2006 by speed post."Again in para 9 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated asfollows:-"I submit that the 2nd respondent has beenthreatening me saying that if I am not joiningwith my wife obeying his words, I would besuspended. The Doctors who examined withreference to MRI scan reports opined that I haveto undergo surgery or had to take rest for alonger period so that acuteness of the problemwill not arise again. I have already completedICWA preliminary exam and I want to complete thefinal course. While taking treatment, I cancomplete the studies, which will be certainlyuseful for my service. Therefore, I have appliedfor leave from December 18 to 30.6.2007 forcomplete my ICWA Final course and to havepermanent remedy to my back pain problem. Now onseeing my study leave application, the 2ndrespondent, has resorted to the extent of issuingG.O. suspending me from service instead ofsanctioning study leave."Again in para 44 of the affidavit, the petitioner hasstated as follows:-"I submit that I was transferred fromCoimbatore to Krishnagiri Training Centre by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order of respondent in June 2006. My wife andher brother went to the Krishnagiri TrainingCentre even before my joining the Institute andinsisted on the officials to hand over theQuarter's Key. As the Training Instituteofficial did not hand over the key on the reasonthat I had not yet joined on that date, and thatthe Quarters was not fit for occupation (as thePrincipal post was vacant for many years) mywife immediately rang up to the Secretary, the2nd respondent in this case using the Institutephone and influenced on this matter. The 2ndrespondent immediately threatened the staff inthe Institute and ordered him to give the key ofthe Training Hall to sotre the Householdarticles failing which severe action will betaken against the official and subsequently thekey has been handed over to her and articleswere stored and articles are still in theTraining Hall. This is very much an unlawfulact. Because of this illegal occupation ofTraining Hall, proposals from Districts forgiving training could not be accepted. TheTraining Hall has capacity to train a 50Official batch at a time. For the past 6months, the Training Hall could not be used forthe purpose for which it was constructed by theGovt. This unlawful act shows that how muchinfluence and proximity my wife and my father-in-law has got with the respondent."10. Counter affidavit has been filed by the secondrespondent wherein regarding the averments made about thecloseness of the second respondent with the father-in-law of thepetitioner, it has been stated as follows:-"I respectfully submit that ThiruRamamoorthy, the father-in-law of the petitioner,is an acquaintance but not a friend of the secondrespondent. The second respondent knew him as apart-time reporter and a small time cinematheatre owner during 1985-87 when he was SubCollector of Hosur, Dharmapuri District. AnI.A.S. Officer gets to know a wide variety ofpeople in the course of his duties. This doesnot mean that the I.A.S. Officer would getinvolved in the family/private matters of suchpersons."11. When specific averments have been made in theaffidavit of the petitioner that the second respondent is a veryclose friend of his father-in-law and that he only helped him in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ getting a licence to run his theatre, when the second respondentwas serving as Sub Collector in Hosur and that the secondrespondent used to attend the family functions of his father-in-law, and that because of the said closeness, the secondrespondent has threatened the petitioner that he would put himin jail, in the counter affidavit, the second respondent has notstated that the petitioner's father-in-law, is a stranger tohim, but he has stated that the petitioner's father-in-lawThiru Ramamoorthy is an acquaintance but not a friend of him.As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner, if it is the case of the second respondentthat as a Sub Collector, he would have an access to so manypeople, he may not immediately identify and accept in hiscounter affidavit that he knew Thiru Ramamoorthy, thepetitioner's father-in-law, as a part-time reporter and not as afriend. It is strange, as rightly pointed out by the learnedsenior counsel for the petitioner, that the second respondentcould recollect the facts relating to 1985-87, after a period of21 years and it is absolutely impossible to remember a personwhom he met some 21 years back, if the relationship of the saidperson is only an acquaintance and not a friend.12. Yet another factor that has been brought forth bythe petitioner is that in paragraph 44 of the affidavit, thepetitioner has narrated an incident that happened in June 2006which has been extracted earlier. The second respondent has noteven denied the same in the counter affidavit filed by him inDecember 2006. It can then well be presumed that the incidentaverred by the petitioner in paragraph 44 of his affidavit istrue. The second respondent has denied the said facts only inthe additional counter affidavit filed to the reply affidavit ofthe petitioner in July 2007. In the reply affidavit in para 7,the petitioner has averred as follows:-"The petitioner further submits that ThiruN.Jaganathan in his letter dated 20.7.2006 hasstated that the wife of the petitionercontacted the second respondent over phone andthe second respondent has also giveninstructions to him over phone to hand over theTraining Hall to her. It is evident that thewife of the petitioner had the cellnumber/telephone number of the secondrespondent readily available with her and alsoshe had an easy access over phone to the secondrespondent. This clearly shows the intimacyand influence over the second respondent by thefamily of the petitioner's father-in-law."13. In the additional counter affidavit to the saidreply affidavit, the second respondent has averred as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "With regard to the averment made in para 7of the reply affidavit I respectfully submit thatthe allegation is denied. It is easy to find theoffice, residential and cell phone numbers of anIAS officer as they are all in the public domain.The petitioner's wife had brought her belongingsto the Regional Institute of Rural Development,Krishnagiri and had kept them in one of the roomstemporarily as the Principal's quarters was in abad shape. Nobody was told to hand over the"Training Hall" to her. Shortly, thereafter, sheis reported to have removed her belongings fromthe Institute."14. In the said counter affidavit, the secondrespondent has not denied that the wife of the petitionercontacted him over phone and he has given instruction over phoneto hand over the Training Hall to her. This will clearly showthat there is an element of truth in the statement made by thepetitioner about the closeness of the second respondent with thefather-in-law of the petitioner and the averments made in thisregard. Further, the second respondent has not denied thestatement made by the petitioner in his affidavit that thesecond respondent has attended the family functions of hisfather-in-law. If it is a mere acquaintance, the secondrespondent would not have attended the family functions of thefather-in-law of the petitioner.15. The learned Additional Advocate General appearingfor the respondents cited a decision reported in 2002 (1) S.C.C.188 (UNION OF INDIA v. ASHUTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) and submittedthat there is always a presumption in favour of theadministration that it exercises powers in good faith and forpublic benefit. The burden is on the individual to producesufficient material to suggest of the mala fides of theauthority concerned and it is not easy to discharge the same.It is relevant to refer para 7 of the said judgment which readsas follows:-"In the first place, the Tribunal shouldhave given a definite finding as to whether ShriSanjai Mittal was related to Respondent 2 or notand, if that ground failed, it should not haveallowed respondent 1 to change his stance thatsomehow and in some other manner Shri SanjaiMittal is connected with respondent 2. TheTribunal should not have proceeded on lineproving the moral indicated in one of Aesop'sFables of the lamb and the wolf when thecomplaint was that the stream was being pollutedby the lamb and if not by it, by any of itsforefathers. The approach of the Tribunal in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this regard is by no reason good enough tochastise the said respondent 2 and condemn theproceedings conducted not only by him but otherofficers who are of equivalent rank. There isalways a presumption in favour of administrationthat it exercises powers in good faith and forpublic benefit. The burden is on the individualto produce sufficient material to suggest of themala fides of the authority concerned and it isnot easy to discharge the same."The facts narrated in the said judgment will not be applicableto the facts of the present case. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General has citedyet another decision reported in 1995 Supp. (4) S.C.C. 89(DR.J.N. BANAVALIKAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI) andsubmitted that a vague allegation of mala fide without necessaryparticulars cannot be accepted. As pointed out earlier, thepetitioner has not only raised the plea of mala fide, but hasgiven instances for the same. This cannot be said to be vagueor without any necessary particulars. Hence, the said judgmentwill not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Thediscussion made above clearly shows that the petitioner hasestablished mala fide of the second respondent in passing theimpugned order.17. Thus, the above narration of facts and discussionamply prove that the order of suspension has been passed by thesecond respondent is tainted with mala fide. As pointed outearlier, an order of suspension could be interfered if it isestablished that it has been passed with mala fide intention.Since I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order ofsuspension dated 11.12.2006 has been passed with a mala fideintention, I am constrained to set aside the order of the firstrespondent made in Ref.No.G.O.(1D) No.725 dated 11.12.2006. 18. In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed.Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar dpp https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. Thiru K.Ashok Vardan Shetty, Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.MDR (CO)km/18.9.W.P.No.49122 of 2006;&M.P.No.1 of 2006