1. The matters came up after notice of motion. Mr. N. R. Chandran, Additional Government Pleader, represents the respondent. The challenge in these writ petitions is of orders of suspension. It would be sufficient if I refer to the preamble of the order in W.P. No. 8623 of 1985.
'Whereas an enquiry into grave charges is pending against HC 478 Govindarajalu of Kannapuram PS and whereas in the circumstances of the case it is necessary in the police interest to place him under suspension from service with immediate effect'.
2. The language is same in both the cases. The order of suspension is one passed under Rule 3(e)(1)(i) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. It reads as follows :-
'A member of a service may be placed under suspension from services, where -
i. an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending'
As I could see from the preamble of the order impugned, it is claimed that the enquiry into grave charges is pending. It is the admitted fact that this is factually an incorrect statement. However Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned Additional Government Pleader, wants to sustain this order that there could be an order of suspension even where an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated. Such is not the contingency taken note of or expressed at the time of passing the impugned order of suspension. The language of Rule 17(e)1(i) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules is the same as the rule referred to above. Both the rules have two limbs. There could be an order of suspension where an enquiry into grave charges against a member of a service is contemplated or where an enquiry into grave charges against a member of a service is pending. There is a lot of difference between an enquiry into grave charges being contemplated and an enquiry into grave charges pending. In the latter case, the charges must have got formulated and framed and an enquiry into such charges must be pending. In the earlier case, the charges could be even in the incubation stage, or even at the investigation stage without getting formulated and framed. The language of the rule is unambiguous when it expressed the dichotomy of the contingencies. Hence the authority concerned must make up his mind as to which of the contingencies is really existing before he could resort to the power of suspension. Here, it was factually an incorrect statement that enquiry into grave charges was pending at the time when the impugned order of suspension came to be passed. This obliges me to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. It is upto the respondent to pass appropriate fresh orders taking note of the existing contingencies.