The Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal today quashed the State Government order suspending Additional DGP K Thukkaiandi, holding that the action was not maintainable and taken without any justification.
Allowing an original application by Thukkaiandi, the CAT bench comprising judicial Member B Venkatewsara Rao and Administrative Member Dr P Prabhakaran observed that the order of suspension was issued just two days prior to his retirement on superannuation.
Considering this fact, Government's contention it was served to prevent him from tampering with evidence appears to be "little far-fetched."
Thukkaiandi was due to retire on June 30 last year and was served with the order of suspension by the Principal Secretary, State Home (SC) Department on June 28, saying an inquiry into certain grave allegations against him was pending. He was then working as Chief Vigilance Officer, State Express Transport Corporation, here.
Thukkaiandi submitted that the suspension on the eve of his retirement was "arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law" and it was passed only to wreak vengeance against him for having been a part of probe in various cases against political persons and bureaucrats.
The Government said Thukkaiandi while serving as Joint Director in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, had abused his official position and had usurped landed property to an extent of 24,000 square feet at Neelankarai, Chennai, which was worth several crores.
The Central Crime Branch of the city Police had registered three criminal cases against members of Thukkaiandi's family, including his wife and daughter. A probe was ordered in respect of the allegations against him and there was every chance for him to tamper with evidence.
The bench said the cases registered were against his family members and not against him. It also said on the date of issue of the order of suspension there was no report in the hands of the Government to come to a preliminary finding in respect of the allegations against the applicant.
The bench observed that his being permitted to retire without reference to any conditions relating to any probe or disciplinary proceedings can only be taken as an indication that government has actually not arrived at a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings.As such issue of the suspension order two days prior to his retirement could only be seen as an action taken without any justification,it said.
The suspension order was not maintainable in the eyes of law, the bench said, quashing it.
