Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order No.E-3/Misc/45/2009 dated 12.11.2009, placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. The impugned order reads as under: STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 No.E3/Misc/45/2009 Date:12.11.2009 PROCEEDINGS Sub: HRD – Demand and acceptance of bribe – Arrested and case registered by Vigilance & Anti-corruption Cell against Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer, SIP, Sriperumbudur for obtaining illegal gratification – Report sent by Vigilance & Anticorruption Cell – Placed under Suspension – Orders – Issued. Whereas based on the complaint made by Thiru S.Balasubramanian, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, a Civil Contractor, a case against Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumbudur was registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Special Investigation Cell on 09.11.2009 at about 10:30hrs as Cr.No.47/AC/2009/HQ for the allegation of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for having made payment of a sum of Rs.1,58,18,261/- towards the contract bill for the work executed by the complainant at SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumbudur and whereas in the trap subsequently laid by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Wing, the individual was arrested at Tambaram Railway Station near Sub-Urban bus stand while reiterating his demand and accepting Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in the present of official witnesses on 09.11.2009 at 21:45 hrs. The said criminal case is under investigation. And where the said Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumbudur, was detained in custody on 09.11.2009 and continued to be under custody for a period of exceeding forty eight hours. Now, therefore, under Clause 6.19(a) of the Service Rules of SIPCOT, the said Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer is placed under suspension from service with effect from the date of detention, i.e.09.11.2009, until further orders. 2) During the period of suspension, the said Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer will be paid subsistence allowance as admissible under clause 6.21 of the Service Rules of SIPCOT. 3) The headquarters of the said Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer, during the period of suspension shall be Sriperumbudur and he shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the authority concerned." 3. Executive Engineer will be paid subsistence allowance as admissible under clause 6.21 of the Service Rules of SIPCOT. 3) The headquarters of the said Thiru E.Dhayarathan, Asst. Executive Engineer, during the period of suspension shall be Sriperumbudur and he shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the authority concerned." 3. The reading of the impugned order itself shows that it is a trap case, where the petitioner was caught red-handed and was also kept under detention for more than 48 hours. 4. The rule regarding suspension reads as under: "6.18. Suspension pending enquiry: The competent authority may place an employee under suspension pending enquiry: Where a disciplinary proceeding on grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending, or where a case against him in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 6.19. An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority: with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise or with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours. 6.20. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so." 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner challenges continuation of the order of suspension on the ground that inspite of order of suspension having been passed on 12.11.2009, till date charge sheet has not been filed, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to revoke the order of suspension. 6. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.566 of 2011, decided on 23.11.2011. 6. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.566 of 2011, decided on 23.11.2011. The operative part of the order reads as under: "(8.) From the materials produced, it is seen that the respondent has been kept under suspension for the last five years and though investigation is already over and charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore even as early as on 02.03.2008 and taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2008, no progress has been made in the trial except examining P.W.1, who sanctioned the prosecution against the respondent, which shows that it will take considerable time to complete the criminal trial. Therefore, we are of the view that continued suspension of the respondent is not necessary during the trial of the criminal case. (9.) Further, it is not in dispute that the name of the respondent does not find place in the First Information Report nor is there any specific allegation against the respondent. On the other hand, there is a specific allegation in the FIR only against the Sub-Inspector of Police. (10.) Section 3(e)(5) of the Rules provides for revocation of suspension and it reads as follows: "An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." (11.) In the case on hand, admittedly, there is no allegation against the respondent with regard to the alleged corruption charge. It is pertinent to note that after a period of six months from the date of suspension, the employee has to be paid 75% of the salary by way of Subsistence Allowance. In this case, the respondent has been kept under prolonged suspension for a period of nearly 5 years with salary in the form of Subsistence Allowance without extracting any work from him, which is nothing but wasting of Government money. In this case, the respondent has been kept under prolonged suspension for a period of nearly 5 years with salary in the form of Subsistence Allowance without extracting any work from him, which is nothing but wasting of Government money. On the other hand, applying Rule 3(e)(5) of the Rules, pending trial of the Criminal Case, the suspension of the respondent shall be revoked and as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, he can be posted in a far away place in a non-sensitive post and some work could be extracted from him for the salary paid to him. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting our interference." 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed this writ petition; i. on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief in exercise of extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the reason of suppression of material facts, as the petitioner failed to disclose that the departmental enquiry has also been initiated against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact, but states that even in the departmental proceeding, no progress has been made. ii. Secondly that under the rule, it is for the competent authority to take decision about revoking of suspension order. The petitioner does not have any enforceable legal right to approach this Court for revoking the suspension. 8. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. The judgment of the Honble Division Bench of this Court, proceeded on the presumption that the petitioner in said case was not named in the FIR. It was in this background that the Court took into consideration the delay in criminal case, but in the case in hand, the petitioner is only the single accused, who was caught red-handed, also that the rules relied on in the judgment referred to, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the discretion is with the competent authority under the rules to revoke or not to revoke the suspension order. The petitioner does not have any enforceable legal right. In absence of enforceable legal right, it is not open to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 9. The petitioner does not have any enforceable legal right. In absence of enforceable legal right, it is not open to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 9. The charges against the petitioner are serious, it is for the respondents to decide whether to continue his suspension or to revoke it. This Court, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, cannot issue direction as prayed for by the petitioner, in absence of any legal right having been infringed by continuation of suspension. 10. No merits. Dismissed. 11. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.