************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.8743 of 2008, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of suspension passed against the appellant from the services of Thiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation.

2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant, who is employed as a Revenue Assistant, was placed under suspension until further orders by the first respondent on 02.09.2006 on the ground that he was arrested on 01.09.2006 by the second respondent for demanding and accepting bribe. The amount said to have been demanded and accepted as bribe by the appellant is Rs.5,500/-. The said order of suspension was passed under Rule 8(9) and 8(10) of the Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The appellant earlier filed W.P.(MD).No.4134 of 2007 and prayed for a Writ off Mandamus directing the first respondent to permit the appellant to join duty as a Revenue Assistant in K.Abisegapuram Zone in Tiruchirappalli City Corporation based on his representations dated 14.02.2007 and 27.03.2007.

3. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by giving direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the appellant dated 14.02.2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. The first respondent, by order dated 20.07.2007, rejected the request of the appellant seeking reinstatement in service and stated that consequent on trap and arrest by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, he was placed under suspension and due to the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No.11 of 2006, the order of suspension cannot be revoked. In the criminal case registered, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) r/w13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the said criminal case is pending in C.C.No.15 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Corruption Act and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli.

4. Again, on 12.12.2007, the appellant submitted a representation before the first respondent and prayed for revocation of suspension order. Since no action was taken, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.815 of 2008. This Court, by order dated 31.01.2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition by giving a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the said representation of the appellant dated 12.12.2007 within a period of four weeks. As the criminal case is pending, again the request of the appellant seeking reinstatement in service was rejected by the first respondent on 14.02.2008.

5. Aggrieved over the said order dated 14.02.2008, the appellant again filed W.P.(MD).No.1937 of 2008. This Court, by order dated 19.03.2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberty to the appellant to approach the first respondent afresh. Again, the appellant approached the first respondent seeking reinstatement in service, which was rejected by the first respondent on 13.05.2008. The said order of the first respondent reads as follows;-

Sub: Establishment - Tiruchirappalli City Corporation - Thiru C.Balasubramanian, Revenue Assistant, [Under suspension] - Orders of the Honouable High Court W.P.(MD).No.1937 of 2008, dated 31.01.2008 - Disposal of Representation filed by the petitioner - Regarding. Ref. 1 This office proceedings Roc.No.C3/(M)/10109/06, dated 02.09.2006.

2.Cr.No.11/2006 under Sections, 7 and 13/2r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.Judgment delivered in W.P.(MD).No.1937 of 2008, dated 19.03.2008.

4. Your representation dated 21.04.2008.

********* Consequent on the trap and arrest by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption on 01.09.2006, orders of suspension was issued under Rule 8(9) & 8(10) of the Tiruchirappalli Corporation Act, and criminal case filed in Cr.No.11 of 2006 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, is pending disposal in the judiciary.

However, based on the Judgment under reference 3rd cited you have represented in your application dated 21.04.2008 for reinstatement to service. In this regard, it is informed that your representations for reinstatement to service cannot be complied with in view of the pending criminal case, as already intimated vide this office letter C3(Main)/10109/2006, dated 14.02.2008. The directions issued by the Honourable High Court in W.P.(MD).No.1937 of 2008, dated 19.03.2008 is also disposed off accordingly.

Signed For Commissioner, Tiruchirapplli City Corporation.

6. On 19.09.2008, the appellant again submitted a representation for reviewing the order of suspension and reinstatement in service. No order having been passed, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.8743 of 2008, challenging the order of suspension dated 02.09.2006 and prayed for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate him in service.

7. In the said Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted on 23.12.2009. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit on 15.02.2010. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Trichy, in his letter dated 01.09.2006, reported that the appellant was trapped and arrested on 01.09.2006 at 19.00 hours. In this regard, departmental proceedings was also initiated against the appellant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, by his letter dated 29.02.2008, informed that the departmental enquiry may be commenced, after the main witness deposes in the Criminal Court in the trap case. In view of the above reason, departmental proceedings is kept in abeyance. As the criminal case is pending against the appellant and a serious corruption charge is levelled against him for demanding and accepting bribe, the request of the appellant seeking reinstatement in service was negatived by the first respondent, as there is no change in circumstance.

8. A learned Single Judge, on considering the above facts, by order dated 29.09.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the said order dated 29.09.2010, the appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal.

9. The contention raised in the Writ Appeal is that the suspension order having been issued on 02.09.2006, the same is bound to be set aside, since the trial in C.C.No.15 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for Corruption Act and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli in respect of the criminal case pending against the appellant is not disposed of and the prolonged suspension is bad in law.

10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

11. For proper appreciation, it is desirable to extract Rule 8(9) (10) and (13) of the Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which read as follows:-

(9) A member of the service may be placed under suspension from service where

(i) an inquiry into grave charge 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.

(10).A member of the service, who is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period longer than forty eight hours, shall be deemed to have been suspended under this rule:

Provided a member of the service who has been placed under suspension under sub-rule (9) and (10) shall be paid subsistence allowance at the rates as applicable to Government servants of the same status from time to time. (13) Where a member of the service is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (Whether in connection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may for reasons to be recorded by him in writing direct that such a member of the service shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all of any of such proceedings or by the appellate authority or by the Government."

12. It is an admitted case that the appellant, who is a Revenue Assistant, employed in the first respondent Corporation, is involved in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption case and charge sheet is pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the competent Criminal Court and the case is under trial in C.C.No.15 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for Corruption Act and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. A person, who is facing criminal charge, can be placed under suspension or not is no longer res integra. In a given case, the department can review the order of suspension on the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the public interest. An employee cannot demand the revocation of suspension as a matter of right.

13. In W.A.No.1114 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007 also, a Division Bench of this Court [SJMJ as he then was and NPVJ], in the case of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. N.Shanmugasundaram, set aside the order of a learned Single Judge quashing an order of suspension and allowed the Writ Appeal and upheld the order of suspension on similar ground. A Division Bench of this Court [NPVJ and NKKJ] in the case of M.Rajammal v. Principal District Judge reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 212 held that Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, contemplates that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending or a complaint against him or any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. In the said Judgment, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union reported in AIR 1959 SC 1342 : 1959 II LLJ 544 and in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 787 : 1966 II LLJ 164 were followed and upheld the similar order of suspension.

In W.A.No.1818 of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, a Division Bench of this Court [RBIJ and NPVJ], in the case of S.Jeevanantham vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and others considered an identical issue and confirmed the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, which was filed challenging the order of suspension.

Suspension orders were also upheld in the case of D.Gnanasekaran v. Chief Educational Officer reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 457 and in the case of S.Jeyasingh Rajan v. President, Kalloorani Panchayat reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 59. The Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and another vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in 1997 (4) SCC 1, upheld the order of suspension of a bank employee, who was facing a criminal offence involving in moral turpitude. In the said Judgment, the order of the High Court, Allahabad, quashing the order of suspension was set aside and the appeal filed by the bank was allowed.

14. The Supreme Court in the decision in Surain Singh v. State Of Punjab. reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 458 held that corruption in the administration has hampered the development of the Nation and the persons, who involved in the corruption cases, should be dealt with firmly and the persons indulging in corruption practices cannot be allowed to be in public employment to maintain purity of administration, as such attitude will definitely affect public interest. In Paragraph No.7, it is held thus:-

7. Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and moralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. [See: Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana 1997 (4) SCC 14 and State Of M.P v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar. 2002 (1) SCC 1.

15. In the light of the above categorical pronouncements of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and having regard to the undisputed fact that the appellant is involved in criminal case, that too, in a bribery case, he has no right to seek revocation of the suspension order, merely because the criminal trial is pending for three years. On four occasions, the first respondent - Corporation passed orders rejecting the request of the appellant seeking revocation of suspension order.

16. Hence, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of suspension passed against the appellant, who indulged in corrupt practices and who is facing criminal trial in C.C.No.15 of 2007 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

17. We are conscious of the fact that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has already given administrative instructions to all the High Courts to ensure that cases in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be fast tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis both at the High Court and District levels. Since the appellant is facing criminal case and charge sheet was also filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as stated supra and having regard to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, as aforesaid, we direct the Special Judge for Corruption Cases cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, to complete the trial in C.C.No.15 of 2007 and dispose of the same before the end of June 2011 and send a report regarding disposal of the said criminal case to the Registry of this Court before 8th July 2011.

18. In the result, the order dated 29.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.8743 of 2008 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

NB To

1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Tiruchirappalli.