Madras HC Stays Suspension of Vigilance Inspector Who Filed FIR on Her Own Department's Orders
Justice P.T. Asha found the suspension of Inspector G. Vimala prima facie motivated, noting the FIR against a fellow officer was lodged only after the Directorate's own approval and review.
The Madras High Court on 24 June 2026 stayed the suspension of G. Vimala, an Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance Special Unit III of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Alandur, Chennai. Justice P.T. Asha, sitting singly, found the suspension order dated 17 June 2026 to be prima facie motivated. The court's concern was direct: the FIR for which Vimala was suspended had been filed not on her own initiative but pursuant to explicit directions from the very Directorate that later suspended her. The stay operates until 9 July 2026, when the respondents are required to file a counter affidavit.
The Suspension and the FIR That Preceded It
G. Vimala is an Inspector of Police serving with the Vigilance Special Unit III under the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. She filed an FIR against one Tmt. K. Rajalakshmi, Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad, ITP-1, attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. The suspension order dated 17 June 2026 was issued by the respondents — the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the Deputy Director of the same Directorate — citing the filing of that FIR as the ground.
Vimala challenged the suspension by filing WP No. 23976 of 2026 along with WMP No. 26056 of 2026 before the Madras High Court, seeking interim relief against the suspension order.
Documents Produced Before the Court
The critical material placed before Justice Asha was a memorandum dated 6 January 2026 issued by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. That memorandum approved the Vigilance report submitted by Vimala and specifically instructed her to prepare a draft FIR against Tmt. K. Rajalakshmi. The sequence that followed was methodical: Vimala prepared the draft FIR and forwarded it to the Director for approval. On 12 February 2026, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, reviewed the draft, found it required certain corrections, and only after those corrections were incorporated was the FIR actually lodged.
The documents therefore showed a chain of institutional authorisation — approval of the Vigilance report, direction to draft the FIR, supervisory review of the draft, and correction before registration — all preceding the FIR that the Directorate later used as the basis for suspending Vimala.
The Court's Prima Facie Finding
Justice Asha's reasoning was concise. The court observed that the FIR had been lodged only on the directions of the Directorate of Vigilance, whose memorandum of 6 January 2026 had approved the underlying Vigilance report and instructed Vimala to prepare the draft FIR. Given that the entire process of lodging the FIR was set in motion and supervised by the same authority that subsequently suspended her, the court formed the view that the suspension order was motivated.
The court did not elaborate further on the nature of the motivation or make any final finding on the merits, as the matter is at the interim stage. The respondents are yet to file their counter affidavit. However, the prima facie characterisation of the suspension as motivated was sufficient for the court to grant a stay.
Outcome
Justice P.T. Asha stayed the suspension order dated 17 June 2026 until 9 July 2026. The matter has been posted for 9 July 2026 for the respondents to file their counter affidavit. Mr. S. Ayyathurai appeared for the petitioner G. Vimala. Mr. V. Sivalingam appeared for Respondents 1 and 2, the Director and Deputy Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.