SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Trap case order /W.P.No.14727 of 2024D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.This writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 04.07.2022. Whenever, challenge is made to the order of suspension by the government servants facing corruption charges, more

by ·

W.P.No.14727 of 2024
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 04.07.2022. Whenever, challenge is made to the order of suspension by the government servants facing corruption charges, more particularly, trap cases, this Court has been suo moto impleading the Investigating Officer in the Criminal Case and even while passing orders on merits relating to suspension, directions were also given to the Investigating Officers to expedite filing of charge sheets or to the Court concerned to expedite trial. When this Court sought to implead the Investigating Officer in this case also, Mr. Vijaykumar, learned Senior Counsel, made submissions that such a practise need not be
resorted to when this Court is dealing only with the issue of suspension.
2.1. Mr.Vijaykumar, learned Senior Counsel would submit that an employee cannot be kept under prolonged suspension. Even after the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of P.Kannan vs The Commissioner for Municipal Administration & Ors. , has clarified the applicability of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary & Anr , still there are Division Bench judgments holding that the employees need not be put in prolonged suspension merely
because the criminal case is pending. Instead of wasting his services, he can be transferred and employed elsewhere and can be paid by extracting
his services.
2.2. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Director General of Police vs. D.Jayakumar to contend that merely on the basis of pendency of criminal cases, if the Government employee is suspended, such a suspension cannot be extended needlessly without any reason. He would further submit that there is no necessity to implead the Investigating Officer in this kind of cases.

  1. I have considered the said submission.
    4.1. As a matter of fact, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been clarified by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of P.Kannan (supra). The raison d’etre behind the clarification is that in the case of this nature, where the employee is facing corruption case upon a trap being set up and upon being caught red-handed getting bribed, by simply avoiding the criminal case and delaying the criminal case, the relevant service jurisdiction is invoked to revoke the suspension and the employee joins back into
    service. Thereafter, the criminal case takes years together to complete.
    4.2. The delinquent Government Servants need not be presumed
    guilty until the corruption is proved. In a case of trap, the allegation of demand may be false. The money could have been thrusted. Conspiracy could have been falsely alleged. It is in the best interest of such Government Servant, who is innocent that he must be cleared of the
    charges at the earliest and must join back the services with his heads high and not with a serious stigma. If the employee is really guilty of the offence, then reinstating him would be like replanting cancer cell into the body and it would be detrimental and would have deleterious effect on the society as such. The Court takes into consideration all the relevant factors including the nature of the charges, the stage of criminal case, the time lapse, etc. while determining the prayer for revoking suspension and takes
    a decision on the facts and circumstances of each case.
    4.3. In a trap case, more than 50% of the investigation gets over even at the time of laying of trap. Once the employee is caught red-
    handed, it need not take years together to file charge sheet. Similarly, the number of witness is generally not more and is always around 20 or even
    lesser. It need not take years together to complete trial.
    4.4 Arguments in different directions are made before the Court in the Service Jurisdiction and before the Criminal Court. Every argument is made to expedite the re-consideration and revoking the suspension, while it is to the contrary when it comes to the conduct of trial and disposal of the Criminal Case.
    4.5 In this practical scenario, this Court exercising service
    jurisdiction cannot look away from the glaring delay brought to its notice. The progress of criminal case and review of suspension are intrinsically connected to each other. I am of the view that the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in service jurisprudence, can also take a multidisciplinary approach and the prayer of the learned Senior Counsel that the thinking of the Court should not be out of the box cannot be accepted. There is no error in impleading the Investigating Officer and enquire about the stages of the case and issuing directions to expedite the
    case. On the other hand, it is very much the need of the hour.
  2. In view of the matter, issue notice of motion to the respondents,
    returnable on 08.07.2024.
  3. This Court suo mottu impleads Deputy Superintendent of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kanchipuram, as third
    respondent to the present writ petition.
  4. Mr.S.Balamurugan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1, 2 and the newly impleaded respondent. Let the Investigating Officer be present virtually before the Court with the records of the case on the said date.
  5. List the matter on 08.07.2024. 07.06.2024

drm 
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(drm)
W.P.No.14727 of 2024
07.06.2024

You may also like...