THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANR. versus K. MUNNIAPP AN

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 21-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

---< i 
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
K. MUNNIAPP AN 
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. 
Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
Administrative Tribunal, made on June 25, 1996 in OA No. 6457/95. 
F 
G 
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 : 
B 
"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." 
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 : 
D 
E 
F 
"(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 
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." 
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 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[ 
-- r. 
-- . 
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 un

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.