Madras High Court stays DVAC inspector’s suspension

CHENNAI: Holding that there is a prima facie view that the suspension of an inspector with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was motivated, the Madras High Court granted an interim stay on the order and also directed the director and deputy director of the DVAC to file their official responses.

Challenging her suspension over allegations of "grave misconduct", inspector G Vimala filed a writ petition on June 17, which came for hearing before Justice PT Asha. In her petition, Vimala contended that her suspension was directly linked to the FIR she registered against K Rajalakshmi, an inspector with the Chennai police's Anti-Vice Squad, several months ago.

In December 2025, she forwarded a vigilance report to the DVAC director based on information collected against Inspector Rajalakshmi, who had served in Chennai since 2010. Following this, she was instructed to prepare a draft FIR alleging that Rajalakshmi possessed movable and immovable assets worth Rs 5.42 crore in her name and her family members' names an increase of 372% disproportionate to her income Vimala said in the petition.

After receiving approval, she registered the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and later submitted the case to another inspector for further investigation. Vimala maintained she acted without personal malice, adhering strictly to legal procedures and the orders of her superiors.

Claiming that her actions were strictly within the purview of her duties as outlined in the Vigilance Manual, Vimala argued that the suspension order is vague, illegal, and arbitrary. She said she was shocked by the suspension order, especially after learning that Rajalakshmi's separate petition to quash the FIR was dismissed by the High Court on June 3.

She also noted that there were media reports alleging that she was suspended for demanding a bribe from a Revenue Officer — allegations she claims are unrelated to the initial order she received. With no other effective legal remedy available, she approached the High Court.

After perusing her petition, Justice Asha observed that the suspension order seemed motivated, and directed the director and deputy director to file their responses to Vimala’s petition.