Madras High Court Keeps In Abeyance Order Staying Suspension Of DVAC Inspector Accused Of Seeking Bribe

The Madras High Court has kept in abeyance a single judge's order staying the suspension of an Inspector of Police (DVAC). The single judge had stayed the suspension order, noting that the order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan kept in abeyance the stay order after being informed that the single judge had passed the order solely on the basis of submissions made by the Inspector, without verifying the facts.

Additional Advocate General Gowtham, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, informed the court that the suspension order was passed based on serious allegations raised against the Inspector. It was submitted that there were screenshots of WhatsApp chat which would show that the Inspector had demanded gratification for not proceeding with an investigation. The AAG also submitted that the Inspector habitually indulged in such activities, but had approached the single judge claiming that she was a victim.

When the bench pointed out that the stay ordered by the single judge was not absolute and that the DVAC could file its counter before the singe judge and seek to set aside the stay, the AAG informed that the Inspector had started to approach the office demanding that she be reinstated into service, and thus it was necessary to keep the stay order in abeyance.

After hearing the AAG, the bench ordered that the stay order be kept in abeyance.

Background

On June 24, the single judge had granted an interim stay on a plea filed by Inspector Vimala, who was working as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, DVAC. 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. Later, 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.

Vimala thus argued that the suspension order was ex facie illegal and unjust and sought to quash the same. 

Case Title: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala

Case No: WA 1748 of 2026