2001 (2) TMI 1060 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Selective Suspension
2. Authority for Suspension
3. Coexistence of Suspension Regulations
4. Continuance of Suspension Post-Retirement

Detailed Analysis:

1. Selective Suspension:
The Petitioners argued that the suspension orders were selectively applied to them, while other officers implicated in the same criminal case were not suspended. The Petitioners cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their claim that selective suspension is bad. The Court found that out of the seven accused, only the Petitioners and the Acting Chairman were officers of the 1st Respondent Port Trust. The Acting Chairman, an IAS officer, was suspended earlier, and his suspension was later set aside by the court. Since the Petitioners were the only other officers of the Port Trust involved, their suspension did not constitute selective suspension. The Court rejected the Petitioners' contention, stating that the principle of selective suspension was not applicable in this case.

2. Authority for Suspension:
The Petitioners contended that the authority to suspend them lay with the appointing authority and not the 2nd Respondent. They argued that the suspension orders were invalid as they were issued at the direction of the 2nd Respondent without the 1st Respondent's independent recommendation. The Court referred to Regulations 5 and 7 of the Madras Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1988, which state that the Chairman can suspend officers, but such orders require approval from the Central Government (the 2nd Respondent). The Court held that the 2nd Respondent, being the competent authority, had the power to approve or refuse suspension orders and could reconsider its own decisions. The Court found no illegality in the 1st Respondent acting on the 2nd Respondent's directions and rejected the Petitioners' contention.

3. Coexistence of Suspension Regulations:
The Petitioners argued that the suspension orders citing both Regulation 7(1)(b) (disciplinary proceedings) and 7(1)(c) (criminal investigation or trial) were inconsistent and could not coexist. The Court noted that criminal cases were pending against the Petitioners, and disciplinary proceedings were also contemplated. Therefore, the suspension under both regulations was justified and not inconsistent. The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument.

4. Continuance of Suspension Post-Retirement:
The Petitioners claimed that there was no rule in the Port Trust to continue suspension after retirement, unlike Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules applicable to government servants. The Court found that this issue was not raised in the writ petitions and fell outside the scope of the suspension orders being challenged. Therefore, the Court did not consider this contention and found no merit in it.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the impugned suspension orders were valid and could not be set aside on the grounds of selective suspension, inconsistency in the regulations cited, or the 1st Respondent acting on the 2nd Respondent's directions. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.