Judgment :- 1. All the four writ petitioners were working in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., at Salem. In all the four writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the suspension orders dated 16.09.2008, 21.03.2009, 22.06.2011 and 14.10.2010 issued by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., on the ground that the petitioners facing criminal cases filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. The charges levelled against the petitioners are very serious viz., that they were accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the consumers for rendering service. The matter was entrusted to the vigilance and anti-corruption police. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.22780 of 2012 earlier has filed W.P.No.11991 of 2009 challenging the very same relief now sought for and obtained interim stay. Subsequently, the main matter came up for consideration and it was dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2012, confirming the order of suspension. Thereafter, it transpires that the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem,has taken cognizance of the offence in S.C.No.7 of 2010 and the same is pending. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. It is stated by the petitioner that she has submitted a representation stating that several other persons who were also suspended have been restored to service and therefore, she has to be given the similar benefit. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.22781 of 2012 earlier moved this Court along with three other persons in W.P.No.29041 of 2010 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2011. While dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgments in Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others vs. K.Ratnagiri [ 1990 (3) SCC 60 ] and State of Haryana vs. Hari Ram Yadav and others [ 1994 (2) SCC 617 ]. It has also referred the order inW.P.No.12590 of 2009 dated 05.10.2010[R.Ravichandran vs. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai and another] in which the suspension order was challenged by persons who were facing vigilance enquiry both before the department and before the criminal Court. Paragraph Nos.80 to 83 of the said judgment was also referred to and it reads as follows: "80. Paragraph Nos.80 to 83 of the said judgment was also referred to and it reads as follows: "80. No Government servant, particularly a person charged with a misconduct of corruption, has right to insist that he should be retained in service and allowed to discharge his duties and enjoy the privileges of the post held by him, during the pendency of the enquiry into grave charges or trial, involving moral turpitude and it is the absolute discretion of the appointing/disciplinary authority or the Government to suspend such government servant from discharging the duties attached to the post and to forbid him from exercising the privileges, except to the extent of payment of salary, regulated in the Statute or rules, applicable to the case of such Government servant. 81. For the purpose of suspension, it is sufficient that the competent authority has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the Government servant has committed a serious misconduct, which entails major penalties, like dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, etc., from service. Illustrative cases, where action has to be taken immediately, are persons, involving in serious acts of misdemeanor, such as, (a) offence or conduct involving moral turpitude, (b) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, (c) possession of disproportionate assets, (d) misuse of official powers for personal gain, (e) serious negligence or dereliction of duty, (f) desertion of duty and (g) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers; (h) apprehension of tampering with witnesses or documents or likelihood of causing prejudice to an inquiry, investigation or trial; (j) likelihood of subversion of discipline in office; (k) involvement of scandals, and (l) likelihood of ultimate conviction out of departmental proceedings, and in all these illustrative cases, it is the matter of necessity and public interest, involved and therefore, it which must be left to the absolute discretion of the competent authority, with whom, the power is vested to suspend and that such discretion exercised in public interest should not be interfered with lightly. 82. 82. When the criminality of the government servant is adjudicated before the Court of competent jurisdiction and when the Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has launched prosecution or proposed to launch for imposed appropriate punishment under the penal laws, the appointing/ disciplinary authority/ government, should be allowed to exercise their discretion to place the government servant under suspension, which is a step in aid, to complete the investigation/trial. Courts have consistently held that even if the materials are not adequate for prosecution or even after acquittal, when the appointing/ disciplinary authority/government is empowered to place the government servant under suspension, the power can be exercised on proper consideration of relevant materials, in public interest. 83. Once the objective consideration of the allegations, the material on record, warrants suspension, till the completion of enquiry or trial, in public interest, it is not for this Court to examine the nature of the allegations, the evidence and to record any finding thereon, which would hamper the progress of the departmental enquiry or investigation or trial against the government servant." Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the suspension order, the petitioner sent a representation dated 09.06.2011 seeking revocation of the suspension on the ground that the case has been filed due to the enmity by the vigilance department. 4. In W.P.No.22782 of 2012, the writ petitioner challenges a similar order of suspension wherein he was accused of demanding and accepting Rs.2,000/-as illegal gratification from a consumer for giving a new service connection. Subsequent to the suspension order, he sent a representation dated 09.09.2011. In that representation, he had admitted that he was arrested by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on 21.06.2011 and it is stated that since the suspension has given him mental stress, he is ready to face the criminal case and its outcome and hence, he wants suspension to be revoked. 5. In W.P.No.22783 of 2012, the writ petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 14.10.2010. His suspension was on account of the fact that he demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification from one consumer who is the prospective consumer and a vigilance case was filed against him after he was caught in the trap conducted by the vigilance police and the criminal case is still pending. Subsequent to the suspension, the petitioner sent a representation asking for revocation of the suspension. 6. Subsequent to the suspension, the petitioner sent a representation asking for revocation of the suspension. 6. When these matters came up on 22.08.2012 and 18.09.2012, the petitioners were not ready to get along with the cases. In any event, in all the cases, the admitted facts are that the petitioners are facing vigilance case before the criminal Court and the charges levelled against them are covered by the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and in two of the cases, the petitioners were not successful in their earlier attempt and as those judgments still operate as res judicata, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions without there being any change in the cause of action. The petitioners in W.P.No.22782 and 22783 of 2012, have not denied the pendency of the criminal cases against them. Under such circumstances, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court referred in W.P.No.29041 of 2010 batch dated 12.04.2012, there is no case made out. W.P.Nos.22780 and 22781 of 2012 are clear abuse of process of law. They have no right to file a second Writ Petition when the suspension orders were already upheld by this Court and it is not their case that the criminal cases would end in their favour. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.