Madras High Court Stays Inspector's Suspension, Finds DVAC Order Prima Facie 'Motivated'

Justice PT Asha thus granted an interim stay till July 9, on a petition filed by Vimala, who was working as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, DVAC.

“This Court is of the prima facie view that the impugned suspension order is motivated. Therefore, it shall be stayed till 09.07.2026,” the court said.

Vimala had approached the court challenging the suspension order dated June 17, 2026, issued by the Deputy Director of the DVAC.

Vimala submitted that she had joined the police service as a directly recruited Grade-I Women Police Constable on October 18, 1996 and was posted in Chennai City. She was promoted to Inspector of Police in 2020 and served in the Intelligence Department from 2020 to May 2025. After this, she was sent on deputation to the office of DVAC as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit – III, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

Vimala submitted that as part of her work, she was to gather information about corrupt public servants who acquired properties disproportionate to their known sources of income by abusing their position. As part of discharging this duty, Vimala collected information about one Rajalakshmi, who was working as an Inspector of Police in Chennai City since 2010.

Vimala informed the court that she had prepared a vigilance report and submitted the same to the Director of DVAC in December 2025, who then instructed Vimala to prepare a draft FIR against Rajalakshmi. Vimala added that she had prepared the draft FIR against Rajalakshmi for acquiring movable and immovable properties in her name and in the name of her family members to the tune of Rs 5,42,24,529 (372% increase in her wealth).

After the draft FIR was approved by the DVAC Director, Vimala was asked to file a regular FIR against Rajalakshmi and the same was registered for offences under Sections 13(2), read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Rajalakshmi was later kept under Vacancy reserve and then transferred to Railway police.

While so, Vimala submitted that she was served with the impugned suspension order stating that an inquiry into grave charges for misconduct and dereliction of duty against her was contemplated. Vimala argued that the suspension order did not contain any details of the alleged misconduct and was vague.

She added that later, she came to know through newspaper reports that an allegation had been made against her as if she had demanded bribe from an officer not to investigate him. Vimala submitted that the allegation was totally false.

She argued that a government servant cannot be placed under suspension on contemplation of enquiry but only on the basis of specific allegation of misconduct and calling for an explanation. She added that once the authority finds that the explanation is not satisfactory, only then an enquiry would be ordered. She submitted that in the present case, no such procedure had been adopted and the Deputy Director had arbitrarily placed her under suspension, which amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

She also pointed out that the act of placing her under suspension was highly discriminatory since Rajalakshmi, against whom an FIR was registered, was allowed to continue in service.

She also submitted that even if any allegation was made against the officers on deputation, the DVAC should have repatriated the officer to the parent department along with the report of the allegation instead of directly ordering a suspension.

Thus, arguing that the suspension order was ex facie illegal and unjust, Vimala had approached the court to stay the order and quash the same.

Case Title: Vimala v The Director of Vigilance

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284

Case No: WP 23976 of 2026