VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

502 DECISION - 228
cannot look into sufficiency of material, but only
factum of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no
satisfaction at all or it was formed on extraneous
consideration or there was total lack of application of
mind. Fact that the Court can form a different opinion
is no ground for quashing the order of suspension.
State of Tamilnadu vs. P.M. Balliappa,
1984(3) SLR MAD 534
The respondent belongs to the Tamilnadu cadre of I.A.S.,
and was functioning as the Director, Anna Institute of Management.
A petition was presented by an I.P.S. Officer of Tamilnadu cadre on
deputation to Government of India on 24-8-83 that the respondent
had enticed his wife, developed clandestine relationship with her and
was misusing his official position to visit Delhi as she was at Delhi,
and followed it up with another petition on 15-9-83 giving further details
about the alleged clandestine and immoral relationship between his
wife and the respondent. The Government of Tamilnadu examined
the matter and was fully satisfied that a prima facie case involving
moral turpitude and criminal misconduct existed warranting initiation
of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and placed him
under suspension under rule 3(1)(a) of the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
A single Judge of the Madras High Court set aside the order
of suspension and in the appeal filed by the State Government, the
Division Bench of the High Court observed that the matter of
suspension is left to the objective satisfaction of the Government
and the Court cannot look into the question as to whether the materials
are adequate or inadequate from its point of view. But the factum of
satisfaction can always be questioned before the Court and the party
challenging the order of suspension can always show that the
professed satisfaction is no satisfaction at all, either because it was
formed on extraneous or irrelevant circumstances or that there was