Madras High Court
Swaminathan (Died) vs The Secretary To Government on 10 August, 2021
W.A.No.193 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A. No.193 of 2020
1. Swaminathan (died)
2. Mahalakshmi, (w/o late Swaminathan)
II Appellant brought on record as legal heir
of the deceased first appellant, as per order,
dated 28.06.2021, passed in C.M.P.No.3114/2021
of this Appeal.
... Appellants
vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services,
Teynampet, Chennai- 6.
3. The Joint Director of Health Services,
Kumbakkonam. ...Respondents
Prayer :-
Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.07.2019 made in W.P. No.16192 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
For Respondents : Mr. C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy, J., )
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed in
W.P.No.16192 of 2018, dated 11.07.2019.
2. The writ petitioner in the above said Writ Petition, viz., 16192 of
2018 is the first appellant herein. Factual background of the case and brief
narration of multitude of litigation need to be mentioned:
i) The first appellant/writ petitioner (since deceased) was a diploma
holder in Audio Metrician Course. On 01.04.1986, he was appointed as an
Audio Metrician in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kumbakkonam
and his date of retirement was 31.12.2006. Owing to his alleged
involvement in a criminal case, registered in Crime No.11 of 2005, on the
file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagapattinam
District, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and was placed
under suspension on 07.04.2006. Subsequently, he was issued with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.2 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, [hereinafter, referred to as 17 (b) Rules]
dated 16.05.2006, framing following two charges:-
Charge No.1 Tr.S.Swaminathan, Audio
Metrician, Government Head Quarters Hospital,
Kumbakkonam, while he was in service in this Hospital
he was included as accused No.4, in the F.I.R. Dated
08.12.2005 and the same was neither intimated to the
authorities nor to the higher officials this is in gross
violation of the Government Servant Conduct Rules.
Charge No.2 Based on the FIR, dated
08.12.2005, on the orders of the High Court dated
18.01.2006, you have obtained Anticipatory Bail. You
have not intimated the Higher Officials. The above act
is in violation of Government Service Conduct Rules.
ii) Aggrieved over the said charge memo, he filed a Writ Petition
before the Madurai Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.6407 of 2006,
dated 28.11.2009, seeking quashment of the charge memo. However, when
the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the writ petitioner 's counsel did
not press for the larger relief, (viz., quashment of the charge memo) and
sought for a direction upon the respondent to complete the disciplinary
proceeding before the writ petitioner attains age of superannuation on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.3 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
31.12.2007. Heeding to such request, the Writ Petition was disposed of by
order, dated 28.11.2006, directing the respondent, (third respondent herein)
to complete the enquiry and pass final orders in the disciplinary
proceedings within 20.01.2007. The Writ Court passed such an order by
wrongly taking into consideration the age of superannuation of the writ
petitioner as 31.12.2007, whereas, the writ petitioner's actual date of
retirement was 31.12.2006. Hence, the said Writ Petition was again listed
under the caption “for being mentioned'' at the instance of the respondents,
wherein, a direction was sought for so as to retain the writ petitioner in
service beyond 31.12.2006, by extending service till 31.01.2007. The Writ
Court, while rectifying the error crept in the first appellant's age of
retirement as 31.12.2006 instead of 31.12.2007, by order, dated 22.12.2006,
simultaneously observed that, it is upto the respondent to retain the writ
petitioner in service till 31.01.2007, however, made it clear to complete
enquiry by 20.01.2007.
iii) Pursuant to such direction issued in W.P.(MD)No.6407 of 2006,
an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who completed the enquiry and
submitted a report on 09.01.2007, holding that the charges levelled against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.4 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
the writ petitioner were proved, based on which, the Disciplinary Authority,
by an order, dated 23.01.2007, imposed a punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year with cumulative effect and the period of suspension
from 07.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 was treated as duty period for the purpose
of calculation of pension and other retirement benefits. Thereafter, the first
appellant submitted a representation, dated 24.02.2007, to settle all his
retiral benefits. The said representation was rejected on the ground that as
he was facing a criminal case, his retiral benefits cannot be settled.
Subsequently, the second respondent, without any notice, passed an order,
dated 08.09.2007, canceling the order, dated 23.01.2007, (whereby
stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was passed) and
the first appellant was retained in service. In the interregnum period, on
27.04.2017, the criminal proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner
ended in acquittal. The writ petitioner submitted a representation dated
01.06.2017, setting out that on account of pendency of criminal case, he
was suspended and was not allowed to retire on the date of his
superannuation on 31.12.2006, and since the criminal case foisted against
him ended in his acquittal on 27.04.2017, prayed the respondents to revoke
the order of suspension and to settle all retiral benefits. The third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.5 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
respondent, by order, dated 09.01.2018, revoked the suspension order and
allowed the first appellant to retire from service, but the same is without
prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceeding, which will be continued
under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
iv) Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was reopened on
08.09.2007 and a show cause notice was issued calling forth
reply/explanation from the writ petitioner as to why, he should not be
imposed with punishment of cut in pension of Rs.200 p.m for a period of
three months, as the charges levelled against him were proved. On
18.04.2018, the writ petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice,
thereby, denying the charges. However, the disciplinary authority not
satisfied with the explanation offered by the writ petitioner, confirmed the
proposal, dated 08.09.2007, by an order, dated 18.05.2018.
v) Challenging the order, dated 23.01.2007, passed by the
third respondent, whereby, initial punishment of stoppage of increment for
one year with cumulative effect and the period of suspension from
07.06.1996 to 31.12.1996 was treated as duty period was passed; the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.6 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
order, dated 08.09.2007, passed by the second respondent, whereby, the
order, dated 23.01.2007, passed by the third respondent was cancelled and
the order, dated 18.05.2018, whereby, the disciplinary authority/second
respondent confirmed the proposal, dated 08.09.2007 and implemented the
punishment of cut in pension at Rs.200/- p.m, the first appellant filed
W.P.No.16192 of 2018.
vi) The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, by
order, dated 11.07.2019, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the
standard of proof that is required in the departmental proceedings is entirely
different from the standard of proof that is required in the criminal
proceedings. The order is under challenge at the instance of the
unsuccessful writ petitioner, by way of this Writ Appeal. Pending this Writ
Appeal, the appellant died and hence, his wife has been brought on record
as his legal heir to contest the Appeal.
3. Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant advanced his argument by stating that the deceased first appellant
has been falsely implicated in a criminal case, registered in Cr.No.11 of
2005; pursuant to which, he was departmentally proceeded with; placed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.7 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
under suspension, by order, dated 07.04.2006; which was followed by a
charge memo under Section 17 (b) Rules, dated 16.05.2006, resulting in an
order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative
effect and treating the period of suspension from 07.06.1996 to 31.12.1996
as duty period, dated 23.01.2007; subsequently, the said order of
punishment was cancelled by an order, dated 08.09.2007 and the first
appellant was retained in service; and after his acquittal in the criminal
proceedings, an order, dated 09.01.2018 was passed, whereby, the
suspension order was revoked and the first appellant was allowed to retire
from service, but the same was without prejudice to the pending
disciplinary proceeding to be continued under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules; and thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was
reopened on 08.09.2007 and a show cause notice was issued on the ground
that charges levelled against him were proved, and despite the first
appellant submitted his reply/explanation, dated 8.04.2018, denying the
charges; the disciplinary authority not satisfied with the explanation offered
by the first appellant, by an order, dated 18.05.2018, imposed the
punishment of cut in pension of Rs.200 p.m for a period of three months,
and feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, dated 23.01.2007,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.8 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
08.09.2007 and 18.05.2018, the deceased first appellant filed a Writ
Petition, setting forth all his contentions in an elaborate manner, but, the
learned Single Judge, without even touching those issues and rendering
findings on those aspects, dismissed the Writ Petition by merely holding
that standard of proof that is required in criminal proceeding is different
from the standard of proof that is required in disciplinary proceedings and
since the Disciplinary Authority found that the charges were proved,
imposed the minor punishment of cut-in pension at Rs.200/- p.m. only for a
period of 3months and the said punishment has no adverse effect on the
pensionary benefits payable to the writ petitioner, and the said imposition
cannot be intervened.
3.1 The learned counsel assailed the order passed by the learned
Single Judge by stating that the learned Single Judge proceeded to deal with
the matter on a wrong footing, as if, disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against the deceased first appellant on account of his involvement in
criminal case, and since the charges levelled against deceased first appellant
were proved, he was imposed with the punishment. Learned counsel
submitted that learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.9 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
that the first appellant was in no way related to the crime, as one of his
relatives involved in job racketing, a false case was foisted against him, but
the disciplinary authority, without considering the same, proceeded against
the first appellant departmentally and placed him under suspension, by
order, dated 07.04.2006, which ultimately, resulted in an order of
punishment of cut-in pension at Rs.200/- p.m. Therefore, he submitted that
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the deceased first appellant
was not on account of his alleged involvement in the criminal case, but, due
to his failure to inform the higher officials about FIR registered against him,
dated 08.12.2005 and the anticipatory bail order granted to him.
3.2 Therefore, he submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the fact that an alleged involvement in a criminal case per se
does not attract any disciplinary action, especially, when the criminal case,
ended in acquittal. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the
punishment imposed on the first appellant is excessive, exorbitant and
disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and further, the alleged
delinquency does not relate to the discharge of his official duties, and
hence, the orders impugned in the Writ Petition are liable to be set aside,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.10 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
whereas, the learned Single Judge, without even rendering findings on
those aspects, dismissed the Writ Petition, on the basis of wrong footing
that charges were proved and hence, the punishment imposed on the
deceased first appellant is sustainable.
3.3 Further, the learned counsel submitted that there has also been
an inordinate and unexplained delay in the initiation, commencement and
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel submitted
that, it is expected that every disciplinary proceedings is initiated,
commenced and concluded in time, otherwise, it would be difficult for the
delinquent officer to defend himself effectively in the departmental
proceedings. In the present case, right from the initiation of disciplinary
proceeding till the conclusion of the same and imposing punishment, there
was lethargic attitude on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. For
instance, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of charge
memo on 16.05.2006, and only after obtaining order from this Court, by
way of filing W.P.(MD)No.6407 of 2006, the same were concluded in an
order of punishment on 23.01.2007. Thereafter, the first appellant submitted
a representation, dated 24.02.2007, to settle all his retiral benefits. But, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.11 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
second respondent, without any notice, passed an order, dated 08.09.2007,
canceling the order, dated 23.01.2007. Similarly, the third respondent, by
order, dated 09.01.2018, allowed the delinquent to retire from service and
and imposed the punishment on 18.05.2018. Hence, the learned counsel
submitted that there has been a long delay for completion of each and every
proceedings, and though the deceased first appellant attained the age of
superannuation as early as on 31.12.2006, he was not allowed to relish the
retiral benefits on that date, and that is the reason, why, the first appellant
sought for a direction upon the respondents to settle the retirement benefits
within the time, as stipulated by this Court with interest at 12% p.a. from
31.12.2006, i.e., the date on which, he attained the age of superannuation
and till the date of actual payment. The learned counsel also submitted that
the first appellant had become a continuous litigant before this Court, by
way of filing W.P.(MD)No.6407 of 2006, W.P.No.16192 of 2018, after all,
seeking for his retiral benefits and the present Writ Appeal is only an
aftermath of those litigations.
3.4 Further, he submitted that there is no provision, either under the
Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules or any law, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.12 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
mandates that the government employees should intimate the higher
officers as regards their (government employees) involvement in criminal
case and any bail/anticipatory bail obtained by them in connection with
such criminal case. The learned counsel, in support of his contention,
referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, rendered
in W.A.No.2545 of 2013, dated 13.12.2018, in the case of (The
Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Vs. P.Sakthivelayuthasamy),
and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, Mr. C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents submitted that the Inspector of Police, District Crime
Branch, Nagapattinam District, registered an First Information Report,
dated 08.12.2005, wherein, the deceased first appellant was arrayed as a
fourth accused; thereafter, the deceased first appellant obtained anticipatory
bail order, dated 18.01.2006; but, all these were not brought to the
knowledge of the respondents and the deceased first appellant deliberately
suppressed the same; hence, the Disciplinary Authority, taking into account
the background facts, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
deceased first appellant by issuance of a charge memo, dated 16.05.2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.13 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
and he was placed under suspension, by order, dated 07.04.2006; thereafter,
charge memo under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary
and Appeal) Rules was issued calling for explanation, dated 16.05.2006;
subsequent to that, an enquiry was conducted and after completion of
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.01.2007 holding
that the charges levelled against the deceased first appellant were proved,
based on which, the Disciplinary Authority/third respondent, by an order,
dated 23.01.2007, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one
year with cumulative effect and treated the period of suspension from
07.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 as duty period. Based on the order passed by the
third respondent, dated 23.01.2007, the deceased first appellant submitted a
representation, dated 24.02.2007, to settle all his retiral benefits as his
suspension has come to an end, and since the same was pending
consideration, the deceased first appellant filed W.P.No.20900 of 2007, to
consider the representation and settle all his retiral benefits; the second
respondent after taking into consideration the connected records and
relevant rules, felt that the order, dated 23.01.2007 passed by the third
respondent, Joint Director of Health Service, Kumbakonam, suffers certain
defects and to rectify the defects, the case has to be taken up for a revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.14 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
under Rule 36 of T.N.C.S.(D & A) Rules, and since the six months' time
limit prescribed for revision was already expired, he has no power to take
up the revision and hence, referred the matter to the Government and he
(the second respondent) passed an order, dated 08.09.2007, to that effect
and thereby, cancelled the earlier order passed by the third respondent,
dated 23.01.2007, and the first appellant was retained in service. Later on,
after the criminal proceedings initiated against the deceased first appellant
ended in acquittal on 27.04.2017, the third respondent passed an order
revoking the suspension order dated 09.01.2018, and allowed the deceased
first appellant to retire from service, however, making it clear that
disciplinary proceeding will be continued under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules. Thereafter, as stated in the order, dated 09.01.2018,
the disciplinary proceeding was reopened and a show cause notice was
issued calling forth reply/explanation from the deceased first appellant as to
why, he should not be imposed with punishment of cut in pension of Rs.200
p.m for a period of three months, as the charges levelled against him were
proved. On 18.04.2018, the deceased first appellant submitted his reply to
the show cause notice, and since the reply/explanation offered by the first
appellant was not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.15 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
proposal as stated in the show cause notice, dated 08.09.2007, by an order,
dated 18.05.2018.
4.1 Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that
since the deceased first appellant never informed the respondents regarding
registration of criminal case against him and also the fact that he was in
anticipatory bail, in connection to the criminal case, and was guilty of
suppressio veri suggesstio falsi, disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against the deceased first appellant and since the charges were found to be
proved against the deceased first appellant, he was imposed with the
punishment of cut-in-pension at Rs.200/- p.m. by the Disciplinary Authority
and the said order of punishment is only minor punishment, and as rightly
held by the learned Single Judge, the same has no adverse effect on the
pensionary benefits payable to the deceased first appellant.
4.2 Further, the learned Government Advocate submitted that, it is
trite that, in a departmental proceeding, strict and sophisticated rules are not
applicable, the preponderance of probability of the charge alone is
sufficient, however, that is not the case in criminal proceedings and even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.16 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
after acquitting the accused in the criminal case, the Department can
proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Such being the position, the
acquittal of the first appellant in the criminal case will not have any bearing
on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents and since the
charges framed with respect to disciplinary proceedings were found to be
proven, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the punishment of
cut-in pension at Rs.200/- p.m. This vital aspect was taken note of by the
learned Single Judge and proceeded with the matter on that basis and
rendered a well reasoned decision and as such, the impugned order is
sustainable.
4.3 In fine, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there
is no illegality in such orders, dated 23.01.2007, 08.09.2007 and 18.05.2018
and all those orders/proceedings were passed/completed in the normal
course and there is no deliberate delay in completion of any proceedings, as
alleged by the deceased first appellant. Thus, by stating so, he prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.17 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully
gone through the materials placed on record, especially, the detailed
affidavit sworn in by the deceased first appellant in connection to the Writ
Petition.
6. Before going into the merits of the matter, it would be useful to
refer to para No.6 from the order that is impugned herein, which is as
follows:-
6. Although, Mr.K.Venkataramani, the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress
upon this Court that the acquittal of the petitioner in
the criminal case as well as the punishment imposed
in the disciplinary proceedings cannot stand the test of
judicial scrutiny, the said submission does not merit
any serious consideration for the simple reason that
the standard of proof in the departmental action is
entirely different from that of the standard of proof in
the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the disciplinary
authority has concluded that the charges 1 & 2 framed
against the petitioner as proved and on such proved
charges, a very minor punishment of cut in pension at
Rs.200/- p.m. was imposed and that too only for a
period of 3months. The said punishment imposed on
the petitioner can hardly have any adverse effect on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.18 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
the pensionary benefits paid to the petitioner. In view
of a very mild punishment imposed on the petitioner,
which in fact, has no adverse consequence, this Court
does not think that this is a fit case to intervene with
the penalty imposed on the petitioner.”
6.1 A perusal of para No.6 of the impugned order would show that
the learned Single Judge proceeded to deal with the matter on a wrong
footing, as if, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the deceased
first appellant on account of his involvement in a criminal case, and since
the charges levelled against the deceased first appellant in regard to such
disciplinary proceedings were proved, he was imposed with the punishment
and proceeded to pass orders with an observation that the standard of proof
in the disciplinary proceeding is entirely different from the standard of
proof that is required in the criminal proceedings and thereby, negatived the
claim of the writ petitioner. However, a cursory glance of the charges would
show that the deceased first appellant was departmentally proceeded with,
not on account of his involvement in the criminal case, but, for his failure to
intimate the respondents about the registration of FIR against him, where,
he was roped in as fourth accused and the anticipatory bail order obtained
by him owing to such criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.19 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
6.2 Thus, the issue that arose for consideration in the Writ Appeal
is as to whether the failure on the part of the government employee to
intimate the Department about his involvement in the criminal case and the
receipt of anticipatory bail would amount to misconduct, so as to initiate
disciplinary proceeding by the respondents under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This vital aspect was not dealt
with by the learned Single Judge, rather, he has given findings with regard
to the degree of proof that are required in both the disciplinary and criminal
proceedings, which is not related to the issue at all. Though the deceased
first appellant raised very many contentions both in the form of Grounds of
Writ Petition and Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, we are not going to
advert to those issues and the contentions raised in that regard, inasmuch as,
it would be suffice to answer the issue that arises herein as the same will
give quietus to the entire issue, and hence, all other contentions raised by
the deceased first appellant are brushed aside. Since in the case on hand,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated under 17(b) Rules, firstly, it has to
be seen whether the said Rule prescribes any specific provision to impose
punishment on a government servant on account of his failure to intimate
the Department about alleged involvement in a criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.20 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
6.3 In a Writ Appeal, involving similar issue, [in which, one of us
was a party] viz., in W.A.No.2545 of 2013, in the case of (The
Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Vs. P.Sakthivelayuthasamy)
dated 13.12.2018, it was held as follows:-
“The respondent herein joined the services of
the appellant in the year 1999. He got married in the
year 2003. The wife of the respondent viz.,Kavitha,
has committed suicide at her parental house. A case
has been registered against the respondent for the
offence under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 506 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. After the trial, the respondent was
acquitted honourably. In the meanwhile, departmental
charges were framed against the respondent on the
ground that he had bad reputation and he has not
intimated the anticipatory bail obtained from this Court
and thirdly, not intimated about the enquiry conducted
by the Revenue Divisional Officer pertaining to the
alleged dowry death. The learned single Judge was
pleased to allow the writ petition on the ground that as
the criminal case itself had ended in hounourable
acquittal, he is entitled for the entire relief.
Incidentally, it has been held that there is absolutely no
material to substantiate the charges especially when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.21 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
criminal case is no longer in existence. Challenging the
same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. Pending appeal, the order of the learned single
Judge was given effect to. We do not find any merit in
this appeal. Admittedly, the respondent has been
honourably acquitted of all the charges, which were
culminated out of a criminal case registered against the
respondent wherein he has been acquitted on the
ground that the occurrence was not during the course
of the employment. Therefore, we are not inclined to
agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge.
Non-intimation of the anticipatory bail order and the
participation in the proceeding before the Revenue
Divisional Officer would not per se attract any
violation of the rule warranting action. In any case,
such an action cannot be extended to dismissal.
Similarly, bringing dis reputation also gives an
impression against the respondent when the criminal
case has ended in acquittal. The registration of the case
against the accused is not in his hands. Thus, looking
from any perspective, we do not find any merit in this
appeal and the writ appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. ''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.22 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
6.4 In the above said case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held
that, non-intimation of the anticipatory bail order and the participation in
the proceeding before the Revenue Divisional Officer, would not per se
attract any violation of the rule warranting departmental action. In view
of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it is just a
failure on the part of the deceased first appellant to intimate the Higher
Authorities/respondents regarding initiation of criminal proceedings against
him and the anticipatory bail order obtained in his favour, and there is no
suppressio veri, as alleged by the respondents, which will amount to
misconduct so as to attract disciplinary proceeding under 17(b) of Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In fact, on a reading
of Rule 17 (b), nowhere, does the said Rule prescribes any proviso to
punish an employee for his failure to intimate the Employer about the
alleged involvement in a criminal case and of course, clause (ii) of Rule 17
(e) empowers the Employer to place an employee under suspension only if
a complaint is received against the employee of any criminal offence is
under investigation or trial and that too, if such suspension is necessary in
the public interest. Thus, in the absence of any specific rules, the
respondents have no locus standi, whatsoever, to proceed departmentally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.23 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
against the deceased first appellant, which culminated in the order of
punishment and therefore, we hold that not only the orders impugned in the
Writ Petition are unsustainable, but the order impugned in the Writ Appeal
as well.
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned
order, dated 11.07.2019 made in W.P. No.16192 of 2018 is set aside and
with following directions:-
i) The respondents are hereby directed to settle all the retirement
benefits to the second appellant, viz., the legal heir of the deceased first
appellant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
with interest at 12% p.a. from 31.12.2006, i.e., the date on which, he
attained the age of superannuation and till the date of actual payment.
ii) As the deceased appellant remained as continuous litigant before
this Court, by way of filing W.P.(MD)No.6407 of 2006, W.P.No.20900 of
2007, W.P.No.16192 of 2018, and the present Writ Appeal is only an
aftermath of those litigations, after all, seeking for his retiral benefits, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.24 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
even before relishing the retiral benefits, he passed away during the
pendency of this Writ Appeal, the respondents shall see through it that there
shall not be any delay on the part of the respondents in settling the retiral
benefits and alteast let his wife/second appellant to reap the same.
iii) However, there will be no order as to costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
10.08.2021
sd
Index : Yes/No
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services,
Teynampet, Chennai- 6.
3. The Joint Director of Health Services,
Kumbakkonam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.25 of26
W.A.No.193 of 2020
Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J
&
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
W.A. No.193 of 2020
10.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.26 of26
