Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher, now working at Panchayat Union Primary School, Erathimakkalpatti. A case in crime No.44 of 2004 on the file of Gandamanur Police Station, Theni District was registered against her under Sections 323, 355, 354, 306 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 in respect of an occurrence, said to have occurred on 13.03.2004. She surrendered before the Special Court under the said Act and she was released on bail on the same day.(i.e) 25.08.2004) Consequently, the first respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.1639/A4/2004 dated 28.09.2004 prevented her from joining the duty, though there was no order of suspension passed. The said oral order came to be challenged before this Court by the petitioner in W.P.No.2638 of 2004, in which this Court by an order dated 08.11.2004 directed the respondents not to prevent her from joining duty and in fact, the respondents were further directed to allow her to join duty. But she was not so allowed to join duty, despite the order of this Court. Though the said order was passed on 08.11.2004, on 21.03.2005 by an order in R.C.No.1227/B4/2004, the first respondent placed her under suspension on the ground that the criminal case, in which she figures as an accused, was under investigation. The said order is now under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Rule 17(3) Sub-clause (1) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which empowers the employer to place a servant under Suspension, if a complaint against him for any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in public interest. The learned counsel would take me through the impugned order, where there is nothing set out about the involvement of the public interest. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without analyzing as to whether the continuance of the petitioner in service without an order of suspension, shall be in the interest of public or not. 4. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without analyzing as to whether the continuance of the petitioner in service without an order of suspension, shall be in the interest of public or not. 4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the offence, in which the petitioner involved, is a serious crime and in those circumstances, the first respondent has got power to place him under suspension and though it has not been specifically stated in the impugned order that the suspension was made in the public interest, that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the order of suspension. A detailed counter has also been filed by the counsel. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere involvement in a criminal case by a public servant, cannot be a ground at all for placing him under suspension. It is for the authority to analyse various facts and materials available so as to assess independently as to whether the continuation of public servant on duty without an order of suspension shall be to the detriment of the interest of public or not. If only, the authority comes to such a conclusion that an order of suspension is necessary in the public interest, then the authority can pass such an order of suspension. A plain reading of the order under challenge in this writ petition would go to show that there was no such conclusion arrived at by the authority. Even in the counter, it is not the case of the first respondent that the impugned order came to be passed in the interest of public. It is to be seen that even in cases where the public interest is involved, in a routine fashion, such an order of suspension should not be passed, because the provision gives a clear indication that such suspension should be necessary. In this case, nothing of that sort is found at all. 7. In view of the above position, I am not in a position to agree with the contentions of the learned Government Advocate, who is trying to sustain the order of suspension. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension of the first respondent dated 21.03.2005 in R.C.No.1227/B4/2004 is quashed. 7. In view of the above position, I am not in a position to agree with the contentions of the learned Government Advocate, who is trying to sustain the order of suspension. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension of the first respondent dated 21.03.2005 in R.C.No.1227/B4/2004 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.