Holding

Rule 17(e)(1) authorises suspension of a civil servant where an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated, and actual pendency of the enquiry is not a pre‑condition.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a civil servant can be suspended before retirement when an enquiry into a grave criminal offence is merely contemplated. K. Munniappan, a Divisional Engineer, was served a suspension order under Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules because an investigation into alleged embezzlement of Rs 7.82 crore was being considered. He challenged the suspension before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which held that the rule did not empower the government to suspend him pending an enquiry. On appeal, the Court held that the rule expressly allows suspension where an enquiry is contemplated or pending, and that actual pendency is not a prerequisite. The Court directed the authorities to complete the investigation promptly and dismissed the respondent’s challenge. The appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules permits suspension of an officer when an enquiry into grave criminal offences is only contemplated and not yet pending
Whether actual pendency of an enquiry is a prerequisite for suspension under the said rule

Subjects

suspensioncivil serviceenquirygrave criminal offencepublic interestTamil Nadu Civil Services Rulesretirementadministrative law

Judgment

---<
i

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANR. A
v.
K. MUNNIAPPAN

MARCH 21, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B

SeNice Law :

Tamil Nadu Civil Se/Vices (CCA) Rules:

Rules 17(e) (I )---Suspensio11--0fficer at the verge of retirement-Se1ved C
~ . with a suspension order because of an inquiry into grave C1iminal offences
~ against him being contemplated-Held, in view of the rules an officer may be
placed under suspension where a11 inquiry into grave charge against him is
"contemplated" or is "pending", or a complaint against him of any C1iminal
offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in D
.., public interest-Actual pendency of inquiry is not a pre-condition to suspend
an office1~Pendi11g further investigatio11 into the offe11ces is one of the
grounds.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2503 of
~ E
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.6.96 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 6457 of 1995.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Appellants.
' F
'' Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.
G
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, made on June 25, 1996 in OA No. 6457/95.

The respondent, before being superannuated, was served with a H
327
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A suspension order which reads as under :
"Whereas an enquiry into grave criminal offence against Thiru K.
Muniappan, Divisional Engineer (National Highways), Salem now
at Paramkudi Highways and Rural Works Division 1s con-
templated."
B
The respondent challenge 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
C was illegal. The question is : Whether the view taken by the Tribunal is
correct in law? Rule 17(e)(l) read as under :

"(e)(l) 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
D pending; or

(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under
invest.igation of trial and if such suspension is necessary in the
public interest."
E
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
F of concerted and confabulated 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.
G Accordingly, he came to be suspended, pending investigation into grave
charges. ,
'
Smt. Chandan Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the respondent, has
contended that the fact that investigation has not been completed though
the respondent is still under suspension would show that there is no grave
H charges against him and, therefore, he cannot be disabled to retire on

I[
SECY. TO GOVT. v. K MUNNIAPP AN 329

attaining the superannuation. She also seeks to bring to our notice that A
against one of the persons 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 B
the premise that the Government has no power to keep an employee under
suspension pending enquiry or investigation. Rule 17(e)(l) itself postulates
that an officer would be kept under suspension where "enquiry into grave
charges is contemplated". Under these circumstances, actual pendency is
not a pre-condition to suspend an officer. Pending further investigation into
the offences is one of the grounds. Unless and until an in-depth investiga- C
tion is done, there would be little scope to identify the persons involved in
the crimes and to take follow up action as per law. If the officer is allowed
to retire, there would be no occasion to taken effective steps to satisfac-
torily 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 D
concerted way, a thread bare investigation is required to be undertaken by
the investigating officer and, therefore, in the nature 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. E
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The OA is dismissed. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

.
-- r.
--