Protracted suspension for criminal proceedings is permissible, but non-sensitive reinstatement should be considered upon filing of final report.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Agricultural Engineering Department, was placed under suspension on 12.07.2022 following his arrest by the CB-CID in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2021

The criminal case alleged that the petitioner facilitated massive illegal sand mining under the guise of constructing farm ponds during his tenure as Assistant Executive Engineer

Parallelly, a departmental inquiry found him guilty of eight charges related to these irregularities, resulting in a punishment of stoppage of increment and an order to compensate for financial losses

The petitioner sought revocation of his suspension, but the Chief Engineer rejected the representation on 06.08.2024, citing G.O.(Ms) No.81, which permits continued suspension during pending criminal proceedings

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

1. Whether the continued suspension of the petitioner is legally sustainable given the conclusion of departmental proceedings and the pendency of a criminal trial

2. Whether the differential treatment in revoking the suspension of a co-accused (Assistant Director of Mines) while extending the petitioner's suspension constitutes a violation of Article 14

Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules regarding suspension during investigation or trial

G.O.(Ms) No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, which supersedes earlier time limits on suspension and stipulates that for employees facing criminal charges, the decision to revoke suspension depends on the specific facts of each case and the nature of the allegations

Rule 38-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which vests exclusive sand exploitation rights in the State

The court reasoned that the allegations against the petitioner are exceptionally grave, involving the systematic misuse of a government welfare scheme (farm ponds) to facilitate illegal sand theft

Although departmental proceedings concluded with a punishment, the CB-CID final report [filed 29.07.2025] introduced further material suggesting the petitioner knowingly approved bogus applications without field verification

The court found that under G.O.(Ms) No.81, the usual time limits for periodic review of suspension do not strictly apply to "grave" criminal cases

The court also observed that the Geology and Mining Department had inconsistently revoked the suspension of the Assistant Director (Accused No. 20), despite her allegedly playing a more significant role in the scam

Consequently, while the court upheld the initial refusal to revoke suspension, it determined that an employee cannot be kept under suspension indefinitely without work

If no further inquiry is initiated, the suspension may be revoked, and the petitioner may be posted to a non-sensitive position after consulting the investigating agency

The court further directed the second respondent to expedite the pending inquiry against the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining and ordered the CB-CID to ensure the early conclusion of the trial

The court disposed of the writ petition without quashing the impugned order but issued specific directions.