(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
2. It appears that in connection with some chit business transaction alleged have been conducted and some money transaction among one Koti being de facto complainant and his father Gajendran, involving the appellant/writ petitioner, an FIR had been filed in the year 2014 itself, wherein no progress was shown subsequently, however, the appellant/writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally by the impugned order of suspensio0n dated 25.5.2017 when he had retire by 31.5.2017. It is pertinent to note that till date, no final report is filed.
3. Even if the final report is filed by the Police, the transaction based on which the FIR is filed is a private transaction between father and son, who is the de facto complainant as it transpires from the materials available on record, wherein the appellant/writ petitioner was implicated and it is in no way connected with the official duty that was being discharged by the appellant/writ petitioner.
4. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant/writ petitioner shall be permitted to retire peacefully as expeditiously as possible, without mixing the issue of some money transaction, which is alleged to have taken place between the de facto complainant and his father, involving the appellant/writ petitioner, especially when the amount is also said to have been repaid to the de facto complainant. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(H.G.R.,J.)(T.K.R.,J.) 4.10.2017.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To: