Judgment :- 1. Pursuant to the order passed by My Lord the Honble Chief Justice, these writ petitions have been placed before this Court as Specially ordered cases and with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2. In W.P.No.14184 of 2010, the petitioner who is presently working as a Community Officer in the respondent, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), has challenged the order of suspension, dated 07.06.2010, passed by the first respondent. 3. In W.P.No.23341 of 2010, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to change the enquiry officer and appoint some other enquiry officer in the cadre of I.A.S., officer to conduct an enquiry into the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 4. The second respondent in both the writ petitions is the Vice Chairperson of the CMDA impleaded in her personal capacity. It is stated by the learned learned counsel appearing for the CMDA that the second respondent has since retired. 5. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the respondent organisation on 03.07.1986 and promoted as Assistant on 07.09.1989. On 20.04.2005, he was transferred and posted as Community Officer, a post is carrying the same scale of pay as Assistant. The petitioner claims to be the President of the SC and ST Employees Federation of CMDA. According to the petitioner, he had been representing the grievances of the employees and the second respondent did not take any action which necessitated the petitioner, to submit a representation to the Government and pursuant to the direction issued by the Government, relief was granted to the employees. According to the petitioner, this has resulted in the second respondent adopting a malafide attitude against him. It is further stated that while the matters stood thus, the post of Grievance Officer became vacant, as the incumbent who was functioning in the said post was permitted to go on voluntary retirement. A circular was issued on 17.05.2010, calling for willingness from the eligible persons to be considered for being posted as Grievance Officer. The petitioner and one Mr.Sivaraman, expressed their willingness to occupy the said post. 6. According to the petitioner, though he was fully qualified to be appointed to the said post, the second respondent refused to sanction his appointment. A circular was issued on 17.05.2010, calling for willingness from the eligible persons to be considered for being posted as Grievance Officer. The petitioner and one Mr.Sivaraman, expressed their willingness to occupy the said post. 6. According to the petitioner, though he was fully qualified to be appointed to the said post, the second respondent refused to sanction his appointment. According to the petitioner, owing to his communal status, his case was not considered and since there was a delay in approval, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent on 04.06.2010. In the said representation, it appears that the petitioner made certain personal allegations against the second respondent. On receipt of the representation, a notice was issued to the petitioner, to appear for an enquiry on 07.06.2010 at 3.00 p.m. in the chamber of the third respondent along with records and materials to prove the allegations levelled against the second respondent in the representation dated 04.06.2010. It is further alleged that only because, the petitioner belongs to a particular community, his candidature was not considered for the post of Grievance Officer. It is further stated that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted a letter, requesting for an adjournment on the ground that his daughter is unwell. However, the first respondent by proceedings dated 07.06.2010, placed the petitioner under suspension. Challenging the said order, the W.P.No.14184 of 2010, has been filed. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that unless specific allegations or charges are pending against the petitioner, which is grave in nature, no employee can be placed under suspension and in the instant case, no grave charges have been levelled against the petitioner. It is further contended that in the impugned order of suspension, it has been stated that the petitioner did not appear for enquiry on 07.06.2010, which is factually incorrect when he appeared in person and sought for adjournment. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is out come of total non-application of mind. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Service Regulations of CMDA are akin to Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification Control Rules and Regulation 4 deals with suspension and none of the grounds raised in Regulation 4 have been satisfied to place the petitioner under suspension. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Service Regulations of CMDA are akin to Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification Control Rules and Regulation 4 deals with suspension and none of the grounds raised in Regulation 4 have been satisfied to place the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of suspension is illegal and vitiated by bias. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the CMDA by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 & 2, submitted that it is false to allege that there was any bias against the petitioner on the ground of his communal status and it has become a regular habit for the petitioner to make such false, derogatory and untrue statements. It is further stated that when his representation to consider his name for the post of Grievance Officer was under consideration, he represented to the second respondent to give him priority for the said post and since the post has to be consider on merits the petitioner started writing petitions/complaints to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu with a view to turn the situation in his favour. Further, it is stated that he met the second respondent and gave pressure to fill up the post by considering his name and when the second respondent refused to yield to the pressure, he started shouting out side of the room of the second respondent in a disrespectfully manner and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is not appreciable. In such circumstances, it became necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings for act of misconduct under the Rules. Further in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, certain earlier instances have been pointed out that where the petitioner has made false statements. The other allegations regarding communal bias have been denied in the counter affidavit. It is further stated that though the petitioner was directed to appear for the enquiry on 07.06.2010, he failed to appear for the enquiry and subsequently, charge memo dated 25.06.2010, has been issued under Section V(4) of CMDA Service Regulation, 1980 and the petitioner has also submitted an explanation on 28.07.2010 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the departmental charge sheet and he has also attended the enquiry and subsequently filed the writ petitions, challenging the order of suspension and also sought for change of Enquiry officer. 9. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the CMDA produced the original files. In W.P.No.23341 of 2010, the petitioner has sought for a change of Enquiry Officer on the ground that the Enquiry officer, who has been appointed is in the cadre of a District Revenue Officer (DRO) and the second respondent being an I.A.S. Officer, Enquiry Officer, should also be an officer in the I.A.S. cadre. However, as the second respondent has already retired, the objection made by the petitioner, may not survive for consideration. However, this aspect of the matter will be dealt with in the later part of this order. 10. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the CMDA and perused the materials available on record. 11. In the order of suspension dated 07.06.2010, it has been stated that the petitioner has given a petition dated 04.06.2010, levelling serious allegations against the Vice Chair Person of the CMDA, who is in the cadre of Additional Chief Secretary, and enquire into the matter. The petitioner was directed to appear in person for the enquiry on 07.06.2010 at 3.00 p.m, by a communication dated 04.06.2010. The petitioner was also directed to produce records/proof and materials available to prove the allegations in his petition dated 04.06.2010. It is further stated in the order of suspension that the petitioner received the notice dated 04.06.2010, but did not appear for enquiry in person on 07.06.2010 and that the petition contains false allegations against the Vice Chair Person, the highest administrative authority of the organisation and it is an act of insubordination of the highest level. In such circumstances, an enquiry into the grave charges have been contemplated against the petitioner and invoking the Regulation No.4, he was placed under suspension. 12. Thus from a perusal of the order of suspension, it is clear that the only reason which prompted the authority to place the petitioner under suspension is on the ground that he failed to appear for the enquiry on 07.06.2010. However, it is the specific assertion of the petitioner that he appeared on the said date and presented a petition for adjournment, giving certain reasons. This averment was not specifically controverted in the counter affidavit. However, it is the specific assertion of the petitioner that he appeared on the said date and presented a petition for adjournment, giving certain reasons. This averment was not specifically controverted in the counter affidavit. Therefore, to verify the correctness of the statement, the original files were directed to be produced and from the files in C.No.EE/10306/2010, which is the note file, it is seen that the draft letter dated 04.06.2010, directing the petitioner to appear for oral enquiry on 07.06.2010 was submitted for approval. The same was approved and was handed over to the petitioner in person after obtaining an acknowledgment on 04.06.2010 itself. The file was submitted for enquiry, there is an endorsement made by the Enquiry officer on 07.06.2010 to the effect that the petitioner did not turn up for enquiry, but he met the Enquiry Officer in his chamber at 1.30 p.m on 07.06.2010 and presented a petition, requesting to give some more time of five workings days to attend the enquiry along with the records/proof. With this file noting, the matter was placed before the Member Secretary on 07.06.2010, who has put up a note on the same day placing him the petitioner under suspension. Thus from the files, it is established that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer well before 3.00 p.m on 07.06.2010 and submitted a petition, requesting for adjournment. 13. Therefore, the appropriate and fair procedure which ought to have been followed is either to accept or reject his request for adjournment and communicate the reasons for acceptance/rejection to the petitioner. From the file, it is clear that such procedure was not adopted. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was not informed as to whether his request for adjournment was accepted or rejected, but was issued with an order of suspension. In view of the file noting, it is clear that the statement contained in the order of suspension dated 07.06.2010, stating that the petitioner did not appear for enquiry appears to be an incorrect statement. That apart in the order of suspension, there is no reference to the petitioners request for adjournment, though it is clear that the petitioner has made a request for adjournment by five working days. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of suspension has been passed without due application of mind. That apart in the order of suspension, there is no reference to the petitioners request for adjournment, though it is clear that the petitioner has made a request for adjournment by five working days. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of suspension has been passed without due application of mind. That apart, when the petitioner was called upon to attend an enquiry along with records/proof and available materials to prove the allegations, he levelled in his petition dated 04.06.2010, the observations in the order of suspension that the allegations contained in the petition dated 04.06.2010 are false, may not be a correct finding, since enquiry was yet to be conducted. 14. However, it is to be noted that a person, who is employed in an organisation is bound by the hierarchy of the authorities and has to maintain decency and decorum in discharge of his official functions, any employee, who makes wild and baseless allegations against his superior or his employer can be hauled up for act of insubordination and the power to punish such an employee is inherent with the employer. 15. From the perusal of the files and counter affidavit, it prima facie appears that the allegations made by the petitioner are not true. Therefore, if the allegations made by the petitioner is proved to be false then undoubtedly it calls for action in this regard, which shall be strictly in accordance with the Service Regulation and other relevant Rules. However in the instant case, the order of suspension appears to have been passed without due application of mind and without taking note of the petitioners request for adjournment. It is seen that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.06.2010, and he moved this Court only after one month and this Court while entertaining the writ petition by order dated 05.07.2010, directed notice of motion to the respondents returnable in two weeks. Thereafter, the matter has been periodically adjourned and posted before this Court on 28.11.2010, and heard finally. Thus, the petitioner continuous to remain under suspension from 07.06.2010 onwards. 16. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another, [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ] while dealing with the exercise of right to suspend an employee:- 29. Thus, the petitioner continuous to remain under suspension from 07.06.2010 onwards. 16. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another, [ (1999) 3 SCC 679 ] while dealing with the exercise of right to suspend an employee:- 29. Exercise of right tosuspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by a ‘suspension syndrome’ and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employees trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension.... 17. In the light of the above facts, this Court having come to the conclusion that the order of suspension has been passed without due application of mind and that the petitioner has been retained under suspension for over 14 months and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation to the charge memo dated 25.06.2010, this Court is constrained to interfere with the order of suspension. Accordingly, W.P.No.14184 of 2010, is allowed and the impugned order of suspension is quashed. It is needless to state that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case as alleged against the petitioner and it is for the competent authority to examine the same in the enquiry proceedings. 18. In W.P.No.23341 of 2010, the petitioner has sought for a change of Enquiry officer. Such prayer has been made solely on the ground that the petitioner has made certain allegations against the second respondent, who is an I.A.S., officer and an Enquiry officer in the cadre of DRO should not enquire into the matter. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent has retired during the pendency of the writ petition. That part from the counter affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 25.06.2010 containing the following charges:- (i) that he has given a petition to Member-Secretary, CMDA and a petition directly to the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu leveling false allegation against the Additional Chief Secretary & Vice-Chairperson, CMDA. That part from the counter affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 25.06.2010 containing the following charges:- (i) that he has given a petition to Member-Secretary, CMDA and a petition directly to the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu leveling false allegation against the Additional Chief Secretary & Vice-Chairperson, CMDA. (iii) that his action of having given a petition containing false allegations against the Additional Chief Secretary & Vice-Chairperson, CMDA, shows his insubordination and unbecoming behaviour on the part of the Government servant and violated of Rule 20(i) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. 19. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.07.2010. After submitting his explanation to the charge, he also sought for an appointment of a Government official equal or higher cadre to the second respondent to enquire into the charges. The first respondent by communication dated 29.07.2010, appointed one Mr.L.Chitrarasu, DRO as Enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted another representation on 06.09.2010, reiterating his request for change of Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer by proceedings dated 29.09.2010, directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 15.10.2010. On receipt of the said proceedings, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.23341 of 2010. This Court by order dated 13.10.2010, granted an order of interim injunction. 20. As noticed above, the second respondent has since retired and the allegations in the petition given by the writ petitioner is against the second respondent in her personal capacity. Therefore, the grievance expressed by the petitioner does not any longer survive and the question of appointing an Enquiry Officer in the cadre of I.A.S. Officer, may not arise. That apart, the petitioner has already submitted an explanation to the charge. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry officer is an officer, who is higher in rank than the petitioner, being an officer in the cadre of DRO. Therefore, at this stage of the matter, taking note of the subsequent development, the second respondent having retired from service and the Enquiry Officer being in the cadre of DRO, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner for change of Enquiry Officer cannot be granted. In view of the above reasoning, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, W.P.No.23341 of 2010, is dismissed. 21. In view of the above reasoning, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, W.P.No.23341 of 2010, is dismissed. 21. In the result:- (i) W.P.No.14184 of 2010, is allowed and the impugned order of suspension is quashed. (ii) W.P.No.23341 of 2010, is dismissed and the Enquiry Officer appointed by the first respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and afford full and effective opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and it is open to the Enquiry Officer to proceed with an enquiry in accordance with law without being in any manner being influenced by any observations made in this order. (iv) Since the petitioner was placed under suspension from 07.06.2010, till date, the period of suspension shall be regulated in terms of the CMDA Service Regulations after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the charge memo dated 25.06.2010. The petitioner shall co-operate with the departmental enquiry. (v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.