Madras High Court
The Deputy Inspector General Of ... vs Marimuthu on 21 April, 2022
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.Nos.1071,1099, 1088, 1095, 1080, 1074, 1087 and 1089 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.6680,6681, 6807,6737, 6741,6769,6771, 6710, 6713,6692,6693,6739,
6742,6736 and 6740 of 2022
W.A.No.1071 of 2022
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range,
Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent
-vs-
Marimuthu .... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order
dated 25.03.2021 made in W.P.No.12266 of 2012 and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr. Stalin Abimanyu
(in all W.A's) Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
(in all W.A.'s)
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
N.MALA.,J
Since the issue involved in all these Writ Appeals are one and same, they are
taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment.
2.These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order dated
25.03.2021 made in W.P.Nos. 11377, 12266, 12267, 12268, 12269, 12271, 12627 and
12630 of 2012.
3. The facts of case in brief are as follows:
(i) These Writ Petitioners were working as Special Sub Inspector of Police in
Prohibition and Excise Wing of the Appellant Department. While so, in the year 2000,
a Charge Memo came to be issued to them for the allegation of receipt of bribe, after
seven years as well as against some other similarly placed Special Sub Inspectors of
Police, totalling about 21. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were also initiated
against them. The criminal case in C.C.No.1908 of 2014 was tried by the learned
Special Judge, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
(ii) As against the charge memo, these Writ Petitioners and others had
approached this Court by filing a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.28311 of 2007
etc., batch, seeking to defer the departmental proceedings, mainly on the ground that
(a) on the same set of charges, already criminal proceedings were initiated, which were
pending trial and (b) If the departmental proceedings is continued, that will be
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners and others, who were accused in the criminal
proceedings on the same set of charges. In those Writ Petitions, though initially interim
stay was granted against the Department not to proceed further against the Writ
Petitioners, subsequently the said batch of Writ Petitions came to be disposed of by a
learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 14.09.2011. In that order, the plea raised
by the Writ Petitioners and others to defer the departmental proceedings on the ground
alleged, was not accepted. Resultantly, the following orders were passed by the learned
Judge in that batch of writ petitions.
“5. In W.P.No.33152 of 2004, this Court disposed of a similar writ
petition and in paragraphs 3 to 5, it is held thus,:-
“3. It is a settled proposition of law that there is no bar for
the department to conduct its disciplinary proceedings and
that it need not await the verdict of the criminal court and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
the verdict of the criminal court would not, in any manner,
bind the enquiry proceedings.
4. It has been the frequent experience that criminal
proceedings are kept pending endlessly for several years
and therefore, there is no justification in expecting that the
departmental proceedings should be kept pending till then.
Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
However, in the interest of justice, the respondent may be
restrained from finalising the proceedings before six
months from today.
5. With the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following direction:
The respondent is permitted to proceed with the
departmental proceedings. However, final orders shall not
be passed before the completion of six months from today.
The department is free to pass final orders after the
completion of six months.”
6. In view of the earlier order made in W.P.No.33152 of 2004
rendered by this Court on 18.11.2004 and the order of the
Supreme Court and the Division Bench judgements, these writ
petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
(iii) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, there was no impediment for the department
was free to proceed against these Writ Petitioners and others in the departmental
proceedings, which was initiated by issuing a charge memo. However, as per the
orders of this Court, final orders, after completing the disciplinary proceedings have not
been passed within the stipulated period, and the Appellant Department did not
immediately proceed against the Writ Petitioners and others.
(iv) According to the Writ Petitioners, summons in respect of conduct of
departmental enquiry were issued only in April 2012, with the delay of six months and
on that ground itself, the Respondent is precluded from proceeding further in the
departmental proceedings.
(v) It was also averred by the Writ Petitioners that apart from the said ground, on
other grounds also, the Writ Petitioners/Respondents had moved the Writ Petitions
before this Court in W.P.Nos. 11377, 12266 to 12269, 12271, 12627 and 12630 of
2012, challenging the Charge Memos dated 07.08.2007. The learned Single Judge, vide
order dated 25.03.2021 has passed the following order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
"56. Accordingly, this Court feels that the petitioners can
succeed in these writ petitions and in the result, the following
orders are passed:-
i. That the impugned orders in these writ petitions are
hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents shall
pass necessary orders with regard to the service
benefits due to these petitioners. However, it is made
clear that, insofar as the service benefits to be
conferred on the petitioners, all those benefits shall
only be given as notional benefits. Such benefits shall
be considered as continuity of service or length of
service for the purpose of consequential relief and
based of which, in respect of all the six petitioners, who
have superannuated, they shall be permitted to retire
from service on the date of superannuation and
consequently, their retiral and pensionary benefits shall
be calculated and disbursed. In respect of the other
three petitioners, who are still in service, the necessary
continuity of service shall be conferred on them and
after conferring the same, if at all the petitioners are
eligible to get any promotional avenues, that also shall
be explored and conferred on them, if those petitioners
are otherwise qualified to get the same.
ii. Even in that case, if at all any promotional avenue is
conferred on the remaining three petitioners, who are
in service, those promotional benefits shall also be on
notional basis except the remaining years of service,
wherein if the remaining three petitioners are posted in
the promoted post and they work, they shall be entitled
to get all the benefits as if they have been working from
the date of promotion. It is made clear that, by virtue
of the orders passed by the judicial forum or otherwise,
since these petitioners have been reinstated and had
been working as Special Sub Inspector of Police till
date, the said services for which whatever emoluments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
they have been entitled and already received by them,
shall not be disturbed.
57. With the above directions and observations, these writ
petitions are disposed of. No costs. "
2. Being aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.
3. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the Appellants that though summons have been issued as early as in the year 2012, the
parties did not appear for the enquiry and therefore the enquiry could not be proceeded
as per the directions of this Court dated 14.09.2011. He further submitted that the
pendency of the proceedings before the Criminal Court is also the reason for delay in
issuance of summons.
4. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners
submitted that inspite of directions of the Court, no steps have been taken to complete
the proceedings within the time prescribed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2011
and the Appellants have not even chosen to seek for extension of time for the purpose
of completion of enquiry and that they have taken a decade to commence the
proceeding, which resulted in interference with the Charge Memo issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
Appellant herein. He further submitted that several persons who were involved in the
allegation of taking of bribe from the illicit drug manufacturers barring these Writ
Petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court and they were dismissed from service,
whereas the Writ Petitioners have been acquitted and as of now, the Writ Petitioners
are about 65 years.
5. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
Appellant submitted that merely because the Writ Petitioners have been acquitted by the
Criminal Court, it does not mean that the departmental proceedings shall not be
proceeded against them. He further contended that it is well settled that despite
acquittal in the Criminal Court proceedings, departmental proceedings, if already
initiated and pending, can very well be proceeded with. He further submitted that
though the Writ Petitioners were acquitted, it is not an honourable acquittal and merely
because they have been acquitted by the Criminal Court, it does not mean that, the
Charge Memo issued against them has no bearing to be proceeded against them
departmentally.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
7. It is no doubt true that the Writ Petitioners have been facing Charge Memo
dated 07.08.2007 containing four charges and that there were initiation of Departmental
proceedings apart from registration of a Criminal case against them. In the criminal
case, the Writ Petitioners/Respondents are said to have been acquitted. It is
represented that inspite of the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by this Court, wherein a
specific direction was issued to complete the proceedings, within a period of six
months, the Appellant Department has not chosen to comply with the same. Though it
has been contended that dilatory tactics has been adopted by the Writ Petitioners, in not
co-operating for enquiry, nothing prevented the Appellant from setting the employees
exparte and passing orders on merits. It is for the Appellant to establish the charges in
the enquiry. As there has been a specific direction to the Appellant to proceed with the
enquiry, the Appellant ought to have complied with the same. That apart, though the
Appellant has contended that there was delay in issuance of summons consequent to th
delay in proceeding with the criminal case, no such ground has been taken in the Writ
Appeal.
9. It is a very sorry state of affairs that the Appellant has not complied with the
direction of this Court and therefore, the learned Single Judge, in considering overall
facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the order dated 25.03.2021,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
which is extracted supra and hence the same does not warrant interference by this
Court.
11. In the result, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, we make it very
clear that the departmental proceedings will have to be initiated against officials who
have not acted as per the direction of the Court. It is also made clear that this court is
not inclined to go into other aspects viz., with regard to acquittal of the Writ Petitioners
in the Criminal Case. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
[S.V.N., J.,] [N.M., J]
21.04.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc. batch
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
N.MALA,J.
arr
W.A.Nos.1071 of 2022 etc., batch
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
