Madras High Court

(Heard Through Vc) vs The District Manager on 20 January, 2021

                                                                                  W.P.No.1117 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 20.01.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                                 W.P.No.1117 of 2021
                                                          in
                                                WMP.No.1242 of 2021
                                                 (Heard through VC)
                     Sekar                                    ...                   Petitioner

                                                         -vs-

                     The District Manager,
                     TASMAC Office,
                     Perambalore District,
                     Perambalur.                                               ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
                     the record made in Impugned order Na.Ka.No.3581/C.V/2020/A1 dated
                     06.04.2020 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same as
                     illegal and direct the respondent to revoke the suspension order passed
                     by the respondent and permit the petitioner to join duty at the TASMAC
                     respondent Department to secure the ends of justice.


                                      For Petitioner  : Mr.M.Velmurugan
                                      For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathishkumar
                                                        Govt. Advocate
                                                         *****

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   W.P.No.1117 of 2021


                                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed, to call for the record made in

Impugned order Na.Ka.No.3581/C.V/2020/A1 dated 06.04.2020 passed

by the respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the

respondent to revoke the suspension order passed by the respondent and

permit the petitioner to join duty at the TASMAC respondent Department

to secure the ends of justice.

2. Mr.K.Sathishkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of

the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up

for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on 06.04.2020

on the ground that on account of Covid-19 situation all the wine shops

have been closed with effect from 24.03.2020 to 14.04.2020 and that the

petitioner has involved in the sale of liquor bottle during such period.

The relief sought for by the petitioner that the suspension need to be

interfered with, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Taking note of

the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the recent decision in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1117 of 2021

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and

another, reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, the case of the petitioner to

reinstate him in a non sensitive post may be considered, provided there

are no legal impediments. Disposal of the writ petition will not preclude

the respondent from issuing charge memo after taking explanation,

conducting domestic enquiry and impose any punishment, if the charges

are established. This Court has elaborately dealt with the similar issue in

W.P.No.13 of 2021 (V.Mohanraj vs. The Secretary and two others), and

passed a detailed order on 06.01.2021, holding as under:

"6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not going to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector by including him in the panel and it is for the respondents to consider the same. It is needless to mention that if any departmental proceedings have been commenced or initiated, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the same so as to bring the proceedings to a logical end, dehors pendency of the criminal case, as both criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously and the criminal case should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1117 of 2021

documentary evidence, whereas charges in the departmental proceedings should be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. If Criminal Proceedings are not initiated or concluded within one year from the date of FIR, there is no hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the departmental proceedings on day to-day basis and bring the issue to a logical end at the earliest point of time and the employee will have to participate in the departmental proceedings and shall not attempt to adopt dilatory tactics.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish v. and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, has clearly laid down a dictum as under:

“19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1117 of 2021

that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non- availability of the defense lawyers to cross- examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order.

20. In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part and to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”

8. For the purpose of brevity, this Court makes it very clear that if any criminal proceedings have been initiated after commencement of the departmental proceedings, the one year time limit mentioned supra will not apply to those cases and the departmental proceedings shall go on uninterruptedly. Invariably, the offenders, who

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1117 of 2021

have committed grave offences, are being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, owing to missing link in the chain of events and are trying to get back the entire backwages and for those persons, employment itself is a lottery.

9. In the present case on hand, even according to the petitioner, a charge memo has been issued as early as on 18.12.2015 and in case any departmental proceedings had already commenced, the same shall be proceeded on a day to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time and brought to a logical conclusion at the earliest. The petitioner shall co- operate for early attainment of the proceedings.