Judgment : W.P.(MD)No.5341/2014: 1. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the TASMAC), by order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5569, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5342/2014: 2. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5316, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5343/2014: 3. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5476, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5344/2014: 4. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.12.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5315, Madurai. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5344/2014: 4. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.12.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5315, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5345/2014: 5. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 24.02.2004. He was placed at Shop No.5267, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5346/2014: 6. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5152, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5347/2014: 7. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5554, Madurai. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5347/2014: 7. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 29.11.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5554, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5348/2014: 8. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 31.01.2004. He was placed at Shop No.5421, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5349/2014: 9. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 25.12.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5302, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5350/2014: 10. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 01.12.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5314, Madurai. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5350/2014: 10. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 01.12.2003. He was placed at Shop No.5314, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.5351/2014: 11. The petitioner was appointed as Shop Supervisor, by TASMAC, vide order dated 19.02.2004. He was placed at Shop No.5150, Madurai. The petitioner is one among the Supervisors included in the Flying Squad headed by the respondent. The respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directed him to participate in the inspection/raid to be conducted on 21.03.2014. While so, the Flying Squad conducted inspection in his shop and found that the Salesman was collecting excess amount than the prescribed price for liquor. The respondent, vide his proceedings dated 22.03.2014, suspended the Salesman as well as the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the Flying Squad during the material time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. 12. The suspension orders are challenged by the respective petitioners on the ground of mala fides. According to the petitioners, they were all deputed as members of Flying Squad by the respondents. The respondents issued a proceedings dated 20.03.2014, directing them to participate in the raid to be conducted from 06.00 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., on 21.03.2014 to find out the irregularities in various liquor shops run by TASMAC. However, the respondents have now alleged that inspection was conducted on 21.03.2014 and the petitioners have, in collusion with the concerned Salesman, sold the liquor by charging excess amount. According to the petitioners, the District Secretary of TASMAC Labour Union, owing allegiance to the ruling party, by name Mr.Suresh wanted liquor in bulk quantity. However, the petitioners refused to supply liquor. It was only the said Suresh who was instrumental in taking action against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the District Secretary of TASMAC Labour Union, owing allegiance to the ruling party, by name Mr.Suresh wanted liquor in bulk quantity. However, the petitioners refused to supply liquor. It was only the said Suresh who was instrumental in taking action against the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, seek to quash the suspension orders on the ground of mala fide exercise of power. 13. The respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.5341 to 5346&5349 to 5351/2014 has filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions taken in the affidavits filed in support of the respective Writ Petitions. According to the respondent, the proceedings, by which, the petitioners were included as surprise squad members was cancelled over phone at about 10.00 a.m., on account of election duty given to her. The petitioners were all informed over phone and as such, none of them have gone for surprise inspection. The respondent further contended that action was taken against these petitioners on the basis of surprise inspection. It was further contended that the suspension was made on account of serious misconduct committed by the petitioners and it was a bona fide action. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suspension in question was nothing but a mala fide exercise of power. The Union Leader owing allegiance to the ruling party wanted liquor in bulk. The petitioners, being the Supervisors of the TASMAC Shops, refused to supply liquor in a wholesale manner. The names of the petitioners were all included in the Flying Squad. The said order was not cancelled. According to the learned counsel, this Court, while considering the Writ Petitions for admission, called for the file and satisfied that the proceedings relating to Flying Squad was cancelled by writing with a different ink by a different officer. It was only after verifying the records, an order of interim stay was granted by this Court. The learned counsel, therefore, wanted the impugned orders to be quashed on the ground of mala fides. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC justified the impugned orders. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the proceedings relating to Flying Squad was cancelled and it was intimated to the petitioners orally. The endorsement made in the said proceedings was in accordance with the telephonic instruction. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC justified the impugned orders. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the proceedings relating to Flying Squad was cancelled and it was intimated to the petitioners orally. The endorsement made in the said proceedings was in accordance with the telephonic instruction. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioners have already submitted explanations to the charge memos and enquiry would be conducted in the matter and proceedings would be concluded as expeditiously as possible. ANALYSIS: 16. The petitioners were all suspended from service pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents alleged that surprise inspection was conducted in all the concerned shops on 21.03.2014. The Inspecting Team found that the Salesman collected excess amount from the customers. The petitioners, being the Supervisors, failed to take any action. The respondents, after suspending the petitioners from service, issued them charge memos. The petitioners have already given explanations. 17. The suspension orders are challenged mainly on the ground that it was a mala fide exercise of power. The petitioners have given two reasons in support of their plea that the suspension was not made in a bona fide manner and it was only to wreak vengeance, suspension orders were issued. According to the petitioners, Mr.Suresh, who is stated to be the Union Leader of the ruling party, directed them to sell liquor in bulk, but, however, they refused to accede to his request. The said Suresh is not a party to the Writ Petition. The petitioners miserably failed to prove that suspension was made by the respondents to please the said Suresh. The question of mala fides cannot be decided in the absence of proper and necessary party. Therefore, I reject the first contention. 18. The second contention relates to the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the Flying Squad. The proceedings dated 20.03.2014 contain the names of the petitioners. According to the respondents, the said order was cancelled at 10.00 a.m., on account of her pre-occupation in connection with the general election. The petitioners have developed a case on the basis of an endorsement made in a different ink. The endorsement indicates that the proceedings dated 20.03.2014 was cancelled. The respondents have given an explanation that the said endorsement was nothing but a recording of proceedings relating to cancellation, inasmuch as the petitioners were all informed telephonically. The petitioners have developed a case on the basis of an endorsement made in a different ink. The endorsement indicates that the proceedings dated 20.03.2014 was cancelled. The respondents have given an explanation that the said endorsement was nothing but a recording of proceedings relating to cancellation, inasmuch as the petitioners were all informed telephonically. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder disputing the statement made in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.5341 to 5346&5349 to 5351/2014. Merely because endorsement was made to the effect that the proceedings dated 20.03.2014 was cancelled, it would not go to show that the suspension orders were the result of a mala fide exercise of power and that records were manipulated to appear as if inspection was conducted on 21.03.2014. 19. The respondents have already given charge memos to the petitioners. The petitioners have all submitted their explanations. The suspension was made pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners have no case that the respondents have no authority to suspend them from service. The Management is having every right to suspend an employee during the currency of the disciplinary proceedings. The exercise of judicial review in a matter of this nature is very limited. The Court is not expected to analyze the materials by conducting a roving enquiry for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the suspension was actually made in the larger interest of the organization. The documents produced by the petitioners are not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion that the suspension was a mala fide exercise of power. Therefore, I do not find merit in any of the contentions taken by the petitioners. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in State of Mysore v. P.R.Kulkarni [ 1973(3) SCC 597 ], Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ AIR 1986 SC 872 ], DDA v. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd. [2004(11) SCC 213], Union of India & 2 others v. Dr.M.M.Cholan & 2 others [2007 Writ L.R. 905] and P.Jeyabalakrishnan v. Secy. To Govt., Rural Devpt. Dept.[ 2007(5) MLJ 1120 ]. Those judgments were all rendered on the peculiar facts of the case. (P) Ltd. [2004(11) SCC 213], Union of India & 2 others v. Dr.M.M.Cholan & 2 others [2007 Writ L.R. 905] and P.Jeyabalakrishnan v. Secy. To Govt., Rural Devpt. Dept.[ 2007(5) MLJ 1120 ]. Those judgments were all rendered on the peculiar facts of the case. Even in those cases, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have made it very clear that only on very rare occasion, interference could be made in respect of suspension orders. THE LEGAL POSITION: 21. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India [ AIR 1964 SC 787 ] made it very clear that the appointing authority is entitled to suspend the employee pending departmental enquiry. The observation reads thus: "11. The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an enquiry into his conduct and the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term in the contract relating to suspension and payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any law or rule, the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension; on the other hand if there is a term in this respect in the contract or there is a provision in the statute or the rules framed thereunder providing for the scale of payment during suspension, the payment would be in accordance therewith. These general principles in our opinion apply with equal force in a case where the government is the employer and a public servant is the employee with this modification that in view of the peculiar structural hierarchy of Government, the employer in the case of government, must be held to be the authority which has the power to appoint a public servant. On general principles therefore the authority entitled to appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending a departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him. This general principle is illustrated by the provision in Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, No. X of 1897, which lays down that where any Central Act or Regulation gives power of appointment that includes the power to suspend or dismiss unless a different intention appears. This general principle is illustrated by the provision in Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, No. X of 1897, which lays down that where any Central Act or Regulation gives power of appointment that includes the power to suspend or dismiss unless a different intention appears. Though this provision does not directly apply in the present case, it is in consonance with the general law of master and servant. But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. But if there is no such provision, the public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. This suspension must be distinguished from suspension as a punishment which is a different matter altogether depending upon the rules in that behalf. On general principles therefore the Government, like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may be called interim suspension. Or the Government may proceed to hold a departmental enquiry and after his being found guilty order suspension as a punishment if the rules so permit. This will be suspension as a penalty. These general principles will apply to all public servants but they will naturally be subject to the provisions of Art.314 and this brings us to an investigation of what was the right of a member of the former Secretary of State's Services in the matter of suspension, whether as a penalty or otherwise." 22. The Supreme Court in B.R.Patel v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1968 SC 800 ], reiterated the power of the employer to suspend the employee pending disciplinary proceedings. "4. The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such suspension will relate to payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term relating to payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any enactment or rule the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension. If there is no express term relating to payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any enactment or rule the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension. On the other hand, if there is a term in this respect in the contract of employment or if there is a provision in the statute or the rules framed thereunder providing for the scale of payment during suspension the payment will be made in accordance therewith. This principle applies with equal force in a case where the Government is an employer and a public servant is an employee with this qualification that in view of the peculiar structural hierarchy of Government administration, the employer in the case of employment by Government must be held to be the authority which has the power to appoint the public servant concerned. It follows therefore that the authority entitled to appoint the public servant is entitled to suspend him pending a departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him. But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or statutory rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. But if there is no such provision, the public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. On general principles therefore the Government, like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may be called interim suspension. The Government may also proceed to hold a departmental enquiry and after his being found guilty order suspension as a punishment if the rules so permit. This will be suspension as a penalty. As we have already pointed out, the question as to what amount should be paid to the public servant during the period of interim suspension or suspension as a punishment will depend upon the provisions of the statute or statutory rules made in that connection." 23. The respondents have already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. It is for the petitioners to defend the proceedings in accordance with law. DISPOSITION: 24. The respondents have already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. It is for the petitioners to defend the proceedings in accordance with law. DISPOSITION: 24. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of any delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, subsistence allowance should be paid to the petitioners till the disposal of such proceedings. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.