Judgment :- 1. The petitioner-P.Sivalingam, aggrieved by order dated 07.10.2009 placing him under suspension under Clause (2) of the Sub Rule (e) of the Rule 17 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, by the 1st respondent/the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai, has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition on the ground that the respondent has no jurisdiction to place him under suspension on the basis of a private complaint arisen out of the personal dispute between the parties in respect of an immovable property, which is the subject matter of a civil suit filed in O.S.No.25 of 2009 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sangagiri. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a dispute between his cousin brother and his own brothers. In respect of the property in dispute, a complaint was also lodged by his brother in Crime No.260 of 2009 on the file of the Maduganchavadi Police Station. Subsequently, a civil suit was also filed in O.S.No.25 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sangagiri and now, the right of the parties, namely, the petitioner and the complainant, have to be decided as per the decision to be taken by the Civil Court. 3. In the meanwhile, a complaint was lodged on 22.03.2009 and on the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report was also registered on the same day. The offences mentioned in the said Cr.No.587/2009 on the file of the Kakapalayam Police Station, Magudavanchavadi are under Section 341, 294(B), 324 and 506(ii) IPC, against the Peragounder and three others. Based on the complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2009 and subsequently, he was also remanded to the judicial custody. The only grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that even without verifying the complaint referred to the order of suspension, mechanically the respondents have passed an order of suspension and from the date of suspension i.e. from 07.10.2009, till now, he was placed under suspension by giving subsistence allowance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this is not the case where the petitioner has committed any serious offence warranting dismissal from service by the department. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this is not the case where the petitioner has committed any serious offence warranting dismissal from service by the department. Admittedly, it is a property dispute between the relatives and only in respect of the civil dispute, a suit is also pending in O.S.No.25 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sangagiri, therefore, when the civil dispute is already pending both in the civil Court as well as Criminal Court, that are nothing to do with the official duty, the order of suspension passed by the respondents is not sustainable and on that basis, he prayed for setting aside the suspension order. 5. In respect of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of R.Christohpher Raja Vs. Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai ((2011) 7 MLJ 7) to say that the suspension of an employee cannot be prolonged on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings and it is the duty of the concerned Authority to expedite the criminal case and complete the departmental proceedings in accordance with law. Therefore, keeping the petitioner under suspension by giving 70% of the subsistence allowance will not help the petitioner nor the department and on that basis, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also agreed saying that there is no departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against him 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that there is a dispute between the petitioner's cousin brother and his own brothers. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged on 22.03.2009 and on the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report was also registered on the same day. Based on the complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2009 and subsequently, he was also remanded to the judicial custody. The respondents department, having seen that a First Information Report has been filed against the petitioner, placed him under suspension, on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and kept under the police custody. 9. Based on the complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2009 and subsequently, he was also remanded to the judicial custody. The respondents department, having seen that a First Information Report has been filed against the petitioner, placed him under suspension, on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and kept under the police custody. 9. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in R.Christohpher Raja's case (cited supra), wherein the paragraph 8 held thus:- "8. In the instant case, the petitioner was suspended on 02.05.2008 in view of the criminal case pending, before Criminal Court and it is also a case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and the departmental enquiry vitiated against the petitioner is not over. It is a settled proposition of law that there is no bar in proceeding with the department enquiry, pending the criminal case. The petitioner herein was suspended on 02.05.2008. At this juncture, I find it just and reasonable to refer the universal declaration of human rights whereby everyone shall be presumed innocent, until the guilt is proved against him, as per procedure known to law in a public trial. The same has been incorporated in the Constitution of India in various Articles, including Article 21 of the Constitution of India and speedy trial is also a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. It is the duty of the respondent to take steps to expedite the criminal case and to complete the departmental proceeding, in accordance with law. Keeping petitioner under prolonged suspension for more than two years cannot be justified and further, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while on suspension, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of his salary for 90 days subsistence allowance and now, he is entitled to the entire salary, without any work, which is not disputed by the Additional Government Pleader. Permitting a person for getting salary without any work is against the public interest. Instead of paying the entire salary, without extracting any work, it would be just and proper to reinstate the petitioner in service and even transfer him to any station without detrimental to the criminal case pending against him. Permitting a person for getting salary without any work is against the public interest. Instead of paying the entire salary, without extracting any work, it would be just and proper to reinstate the petitioner in service and even transfer him to any station without detrimental to the criminal case pending against him. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court, I find it just and reasonable to dispose the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the result of the Departmental Proceeding and the criminal case pending against him." In the light of the above said judgment of this Court, I am inclined to set aside the impugned suspension order on the ground that the suspension of an employee cannot be prolonged on the ground of pendency of criminal case, that too, it was happened due to the quarrel between the relatives for their ancestral properties. Therefore, this Court, by setting aside the impugned order, allows the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.