Madras High Court
Kelistus Rajkumar vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 27 April, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6445 of 2021
Kelistus Rajkumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur Sub Division,
Peraiyur,
Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.5 of 2017). ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent to defer the departmental proceedings initiated vide
proceedings in P.R.No.127/2020, dated 16.12.2020 till the conclusion of
the pending criminal trial in Special S.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the
Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents: Mr.C.Ramesh
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to direct the second respondent to
defer the departmental proceedings initiated by him, vide proceedings
in P.R.No.127/2020, dated 16.12.2020 till the conclusion of the pending
criminal trial in Special S.C.No.2 of 2018, on the file of the Special
Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.
2.Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader takes
notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, this
Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission
itself.
3. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Sub
Inspector of Police in Kadupatti Police Station, he registered a case,
against one Kumaravel based on the complaint given by one Vimala @
Jayasubha, who is the sister-in-law of one Selvendran, in Cr.No.69 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
2017 and also registered a case in Cr.No.131 of 2017, on the file of the
Kadupatti Police Station against one Selvendran, his co-brother and his
brother's wife namely Vimala, who is the defacto complainant in
Cr.No.69 of 2017. The said Selvendran gave a complaint, dated
29.05.2017 to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption,
Madurai, against the petitioner alleging that on 29.05.2017, the
petitioner demanded Rs.30,000/- for deleting the names of his two
brothers and his sister-in-law from the case in Cr.No.131 of 2017,
registered against Selvendran and others. The petitioner subsequently
reduced the amount to Rs.15,000/-. Based on the complaint, a case in
Cr.No.5 of 2017 was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the petitioner was
arrested and the case was handed over to Tmt.Suriyakala, for further
proceedings. In spite of the case handed over to Tmt.Suriyakala for
further proceedings, a criminal case was taken on file in Special S.C.No.
2 of 2018, on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption
Act, Madurai. After four years of registering the criminal case, the first
respondent issued a charge memo, dated 16.12.2020. The petitioner
submitted an explanation on 21.03.2021 for the charges levelled against
him stating that both the criminal case and the departmental
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
proceedings are one and the same and the same set of facts and most of
the witnesses are common. The said Selvendran is Star witness in the
criminal case and he was cited as witness No.1 in the disciplinary
proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present writ
petition to defer the departmental proceedings initiated on 16.12.2020
till the conclusion of the criminal case in Special S.C.No.2 of 2018,
pending on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption
Act, Madurai.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that criminal case was posted for trial on 20.04.2021 and subsequently,
it was adjourned to 05.06.2021 for further examination of P.W.16. If the
departmental enquiry is proceeded with, the petitioner will be forced to
disclose his defence in the criminal case and it will prejudice his defence
in the criminal case. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State Bank of India & Others vs. Neelam Nag reported in
2016(9) SCC 491. The relevant portions of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
“21. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour
of the respondent of staying the ongoing disciplinary
proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as
directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do
not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightway.
Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be
sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending
against the respondent to be decided expeditiously but not
later than one year from the date of this order. The Trial
Court shall take effective steps to ensure that the
witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-
day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it
should not be for more than a fortnight when necessary.
22. We also direct that the respondent shall
extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for an early
disposal fo the trial, which includes cooperation by the
Advocate appointed by her.
23. If the trial is not completed within one year
from the date of this order, despite the steps which the
Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by
the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the
respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in
abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiring
of the period of one year from the date of this order.”
5. Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submitted that both criminal proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
and departmental proceedings are entirely different and distinct and
both can be simultaneously proceeded with. Further, even after
acquittal in the criminal case, the respondents can initiate the
departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In the present case,
criminal case was pending for more than 4 years and therefore, the first
respondent may be permitted to proceed with the departmental
proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
7. It is an admitted case that the criminal case is pending
against the petitioner in Special S.C.No.2 of 2018, on the file of the
Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai. The first
respondent has issued a charge memo, dated 16.12.2020. The issue
now to be decided in the writ petition is whether domestic enquiry to be
deferred till the disposal of the criminal case. A departmental
proceeding pending a criminal proceeding does not warrant an
automatic stay. The Court must consider whether the charges in the
criminal case and in the domestic enquiry are one and same and based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
on the identical set of facts. The Court must also taken into account
whether witnesses cited in the criminal case as well as in the domestic
enquiry are common and whether the proceeding with domestic enquiry
before the trial of the criminal case, will prejudice the petitioner.
8. In the present case, the charge sheet in the criminal case
and the chargememo issued by the first respondent are filed in the
typed set of papers. A reading of both charges clearly shows that both
the charges are based on same set of facts i.e., complaint by one
Selvendran. The charges are that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.
30,000/- to delete the names of three relatives of Selvendran from
Cr.No.131 of 2017. A comparison of witnesses cited in the criminal case
as well as chargememo, reveals that 14 witnesses are common.
9. According to the petitioner, criminal case is ripe for trial and
the same is posted for recording the evidence of witnesses on
05.06.2021. If before recording the evidence in the criminal case, the
domestic enquiry is proceeded with, the same witnesses are examined
in the domestic enquiry, the petitioner will be forced to disclose his
defence and it will prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
witnesses subsequently examined in the criminal case will be well
prepared to meet out the defence taken by the petitioner. The criminal
trial may take long time for conclusion. In the judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in State Bank of India & Others vs.
Neelam Nag reported in 2016(9) SCC 491, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has directed the trial Court to conclude the criminal trial as
expeditiously as possible and in any event,not later than one year from
the date of order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that if criminal case is not completed within one year, it is open
to the respondent to proceed with the domestic enquiry.
10. In view of the above facts and judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State Bank of India & Others vs. Neelam Nag
reported in 2016(9) SCC 491, the respondents are directed to defer
the domestic enquiry for one year from today. The Special Judge for
Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai, is directed to conduct the trial in
Special S.C.No.2 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible on day-to-day
basis, in any event, within one year from today. The first respondent is
directed to take effective steps for conclusion of trial as expeditiously as
possible. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate for conducting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
criminal case trial and should not drag on the proceedings by seeking
unnecessary adjournments.
11. With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No 27.04.2021
am
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur Sub Division,
Peraiyur,
Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8560 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
am
W.P.(MD)No.8560 of 2021
27.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
