Chennai, June 29 (IANS) The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to a Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) inspector who challenged her suspension, observing that there was a prima facie indication that the disciplinary action appeared to have been motivated.

The court stayed the suspension order and directed the DVAC Director and Deputy Director to file their responses to the petition.

Justice P.T. Asha passed the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed by Inspector G. Vimala, who questioned her suspension on charges of “grave misconduct”.

Vimala approached the High Court on June 17, contending that the action against her was a direct consequence of her role in registering a corruption case against another police officer.

According to the petition, Vimala had, in December 2025, submitted a vigilance report to the DVAC Director after collecting information against Inspector K. Rajalakshmi of the Chennai Police’s Anti-Vice Squad, who had served in Chennai since 2010.

Based on the material gathered, she was instructed by her superiors to prepare a draft First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Rajalakshmi had amassed movable and immovable assets worth Rs 5.42 crore in her own name and in the names of her family members. The assets were alleged to be disproportionate to her known sources of income by 372 per cent.

Vimala said that after obtaining the necessary approval, she registered the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and later handed over the investigation to another inspector. She maintained that she had acted strictly in accordance with the Vigilance Manual and the directions of her superior officers, without any personal motive or malice.

In her petition, Vimala argued that the suspension order was arbitrary, vague and legally unsustainable. She also pointed out that the High Court had, on June 3, dismissed Rajalakshmi’s petition seeking to quash the FIR, making her subsequent suspension all the more surprising. The inspector further submitted that media reports had linked her suspension to allegations of demanding a bribe from a Revenue Officer. However, she contended that these allegations were unrelated to the reasons cited in the suspension order and surfaced only after the disciplinary action was initiated.

After examining the petition, Justice Asha observed that there was a prima facie view that the suspension appeared to be motivated. The court granted an interim stay on the suspension and directed the DVAC Director and Deputy Director to file their official responses before the matter is taken up for further hearing.

–IANS

aal/vd