Judgment :- 1. The petitioner hasapproached with a prayer, for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 15th February 2010 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet under Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955 on 23rd December 2009. The competent authority taking into consideration the seriousness of charge placed the petitioner under suspension vide impugned order dated 15th February 2010. 3. The petitioner was issued another charge memo in the year 2010. 4. The contention of the petitioner is, that the petitioner is not one of the accused in a criminal case, furthermore, this Court has already ordered enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding allegations against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained in law. 5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no application of mind while passing the order of suspension, as the petitioner was not placed under suspension while issuing him charge memo on 23rd December 2009, nor the order of suspension can relate to the subsequent charge sheet, as the second charge memo was issued after placing the petitioner under suspension. 6. On consideration, I find no force in this contention. A reading of the impugned order of suspension shows, that the competent authority has took into consideration the seriousness of charges, before placing the petitioner under suspension. 7. It is only because the petitioner was already under suspension that the competent authority did not pass order of suspension in pursuance to the subsequent charge memo which is on different charges, and for the misconduct of the petitioner after placing him under suspension. 8. The exercise of power by the respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory, nor it is violative of any statutory rules. The competent authority has absolute power to place an employee under suspension who is facing serious allegations of misconduct. The order of this Court in referring a case to CBI in no way can give right to petitioner to challenge the suspension order. 9. The competent authority has absolute power to place an employee under suspension who is facing serious allegations of misconduct. The order of this Court in referring a case to CBI in no way can give right to petitioner to challenge the suspension order. 9. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that as per the service rules it was incumbent upon the respondent to consider the desirability of continuing the suspension order after a lapse of three months, which has not been done. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that representation has been filed with the respondent for review of suspension order but no order has been passed. On consideration, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, and the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order of suspension is declined. 11. The respondents may consider the representation for review of the order of suspension in accordance with rules, within one month on receipt of a copy of the order, if any such application is pending. The decision be taken on merit. No costs. 12. The connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.