Madras High Court
G.Nivethkumar vs The District Collector on 18 January, 2021
W.P.No.816 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.816 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.877 & 878 of 2021
(Heard through VC)
G.Nivethkumar .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second
respondent relating to Pro.ROC.No.662/2019/A1 dated 02.03.2019 and
the rejection order passed by the first respondent in
Roc.No.6200/2019/A5 dated 07.10.2020, quash the same and to issue
consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
into service with consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Siva
For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the second respondent in Pro.ROC.No.662/2019/A1 dated
02.03.2019 and the rejection order passed by the first respondent in
Roc.No.6200/2019/A5 dated 07.10.2020 and to issue consequential
directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service
with consequential benefits.
2. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes
notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ
petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated
in a criminal case, pursuant to which, he was placed under suspension
by the second respondent vide Pro.ROC.No.662/2019/A1 dated
02.03.2019. Since, he was kept under suspension for a long period, he
submitted a representation dated 13.09.2019 to the first respondent to
review his order of suspension, which did not evoke any response.
Hence, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.636 of 2020 before this Court.
This Court, by order dated 10.01.2020, directed the first respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
consider and pass orders on his representation. The first respondent
vide its proceedings in Roc.No.6200/2019/A5 dated 07.10.2020,
rejected his representation, citing the pendency of criminal case as the
sole reason. Hence, this petition.
4. Upon consideration of the submissions made on either side,
it is seen that the main relief sought for by the petitioner is to interfere
with his suspension and the same cannot be gone into in this Writ
Petition at this stage, as it is for the respondents to consider
reinstatement of the petitioner, bearing in mind the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another,
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, and State of TN vs. Promod Kumar
IPS and another, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4060, by posting him in a
non-sensitive post, provided there are no legal impediments. It is
needless to mention here that disposal of this writ petition will not
preclude the respondents from issuing charge memo, if not already
issued and after taking explanation, a domestic enquiry may be
conducted and imposition of punishment may be awarded, if the
charges are established. In similar circumstances, this Court has
elaborately dealt with the issue in W.P.No.13 of 2021 (V.Mohanraj vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
The Secretary and two others), and passed a detailed order on
06.01.2021. For the sake of convenience, the relevant Paragraph Nos.6
to 10 are extracted hereunder:
"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 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
“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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
Invariably, the offenders, who 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.
10. With the above observation, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs."
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the
respondents shall take a decision in the light of the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court dated
06.01.2020 (especially Paragraph No.6). Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
18.01.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.816 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi
W.P.No.816 of 2021
& W.M.P.Nos.877 & 878 of 2021
18.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
