(Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) Heard Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.7.2007 passed in W.P.No.23093 of 2007, by which the learned Single Judge, by relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sivanthipatti Nagar Higher Secondary School v. R.Paulraj and two others, 1997 WLR 35, held that the order of suspension passed against the respondent is not valid since the Officer, who has passed the order, was holding the post only as an Officer In-charge; apart from deciding that under Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a member of service may be placed under suspension only if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
3. On a reference to the impugned order of suspension dated 28.6.2007, it is clear that the respondent was involved in concealing 100 grams of Ganja and he was arrested and a case has been filed against him. It is also stated that the conduct of the respondent is against Rules 126 and 134(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 in Prison Manual Volume (2), and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
4. It is true that under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a member of service can be placed under suspension when a complaint against him in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation and if such suspension is necessary in public interest. Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is as follows:
"Rule:17(e) Conditions under which a member of a Civil Service be placed under suspension:
(e) (1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where
(i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending; or
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest."
5. The words "if such suspension is necessary in the public interest" employed in Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules have to be construed on the facts and circumstances of each case and merely because such words are not explicitly mentioned in the impugned order of suspension, it does not mean that existence of public interest goes.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order of suspension it is clear that the respondent is, certainly, involved in a grave offence and keeping him under suspension, therefore, cannot be said to be against public interest.
7. As far as the other point raised that the impugned suspension order has been passed by an Officer In-charge is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Officer, who has passed the order is holding the post in addition to the post already held by him. The proceedings of the Additional Director General of Prisons dated 28.2.2007, by which the authority has been put in additional charge, is as follows:
"Thiru K.Sadasivam, Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prision-I, Puzhal is permitted to retire from service on the afternoon of 28.2.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He is relieved of his duties on the afternoon on 28.2.2007 and he is directed to hand over charge of the posts of Superintendent of Prisons and Additional Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-I, Puzhal to Thiru R.Duraisamy, Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, who will hold the same in addition to his own duties until further orders."
8. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Officer, who has passed the order of suspension, is an Officer In-charge. Even otherwise, the Division Bench judgment in Sivanthipatti Nagar Higher Secondary School v. R.Paulraj and two others, which has been referred to by the learned Single Judge, is no more good law, in view of the subsequent decision of the Full Bench of this Court in A.Savariar v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2008 (4) CTC 753, wherein the Full Bench of this Court, after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court regarding the words "appropriate authority", has specifically held as follows:
"7. Under such circumstances, unless contrary intention is expressed by the Government either by way of a statutory provision or by way of an executive instruction, a Government servant who holds the post as in-charge has got power to discharge the statutory functions and responsibilities of the said post."
9. In fact, the Full Bench, after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalji Kanna v. Allahabad Bank, AIR 1996 SC 1729, has held that the earlier Division Bench judgment in C.Baskaran v. The District Collector, Trichy, 1997 WLR 33, which is similar to that of the Division bench judgment in Sivanthipatti Nagar Higher Secondary School v. R.Paulraj and two others, referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, is not correct law, and held that the Officer In-charge has got powers to discharge statutory functions, in the following words:
"8. Besides since already this issue has been covered by the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gopalji Kanna v. Allahabad Bank, AIR 1996 SC 1729 as referred above, we are of the opinion, the view of the Division Bench reported in C.Baskaran v. The District Collector, Trichy, 1997 Writ L.R. 33 rendered in W.A.No.1054 of 1983 is not a correct law. Consequently, we hold that an officer-in-charge of a post has got power to discharge the powers and statutory functions of the said post."
10. In view of the categoric pronouncement by the Full Bench holding that even an Officer In-charge is entitled to discharge statutory functions, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Government Pleader is correct in his contention that the impugned order of suspension does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity.
In such view of the matter, this writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
(P.J.M.J.) (A.J.J.) 13.4.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sasi To:
The Superintendent (In-Charge) Central Prision-1 Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
P.JYOTHIMANI,J.
AND ARUNA JAGADEESAN,J.
[sasi] W.A.No.1050 of 2007 13.4.2009