Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner is placed under suspension by G.O.(Ms.)No.198, Home Department dated 25.3.2013 on the ground that sanction of prosecution was accorded by the Government in G.O.(Ms.)No.67, Home Department dated 28.1.2013 and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. The suspension order is passed invoking its power under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid suspension order. 4. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the alleged incident took place in 2011 and he was placed under suspension after two years by the impugned order in 2013. There is no necessity to place the petitioner under suspension. It is also submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional Officer in the Fire and Rescue Services Service’s Department in July 2010. His probation was also declared after two years. In the circumstances, the impugned order of suspension is bad. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.67 Home Department dated 28.1.2013 granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. Thereafter, now the charge sheet is filed before the Hon'ble Special Judge for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Madurai. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.67, Home Department dated 28.1.2013 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.67, Home Department dated 28.1.2013 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.67 is extracted hereunder: "Now, therefore under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19833 (Central Act 49 of 1988), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby accords sanction for the prosecution of Thiru P.Jayaraman, Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Theni Division now at Sivagangai Division, for the aforesaid offences punishable under the said Act and for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences by a court of competent jurisdiction." 9. In the said circumstances and also taking into account the fact that charge sheet is filed in the criminal case, wherein allegations are made that the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the impugned order of suspension was passed. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, particularly when the State granted sanction for prosecution and also charge sheet is filed showing the petitioner as first accused in the criminal case, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.