Madras High Court
A.Murugan vs The Joint Director Of Agriculture on 4 February, 2022
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
A.Murugan ... Petitioner
versus
The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Sivagangai Collectorate,
Sivagangai. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent
to pay all retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity, provident fund,
leave salary, unearned leave encashment and other eligible benefits to
the petitioner together with interest by revoking the order of suspension
passed by the respondent in Proc.No.Ani.3/11586/2019 dated
28.02.2020 and consequential order dated 29.02.2020 in Proc.No.
Ani.3/11586/2019 as directed by this Court.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the
respondent to pay all retirement benefits by revoking the order of
suspension dated 28.02.2020.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Office Assistant in the
office of the respondent, was placed under suspension by his
proceedings dated 28.02.2020, pursuant to his involvement in a
criminal case in Cr.No.5 of 2019 on the file of All Women Police
Station, Sivagangai. The respondent also issued a charge memo against
the petitioner. By referring the criminal case and the disciplinary
proceedings, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service and
the terminal benefits were also not paid to the petitioner. According to
the petitioner, he was due to retire from service on 29.02.2019 and for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
the past two years, he was not allowed to retire and was also not paid
the retirement benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8172 of
2020. This Court, by order dated 04.08.2020, issued a direction to the
respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of
four months. Despite the order of this Court, the respondent has not
concluded the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent submits that pursuant to the order of this
Court dated 04.08.2020, the department conducted an enquiry and the
enquiry was also concluded. However, the Enquiry Officer held that
among three charges, one charge is proved and the remaining two
charges can be decided only on the outcome of the criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
Therefore, the respondent could not pass any order on the disciplinary
proceedings and the respondent also filed a necessary application for
extension of time to comply with the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by
this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8172 of 2020.
5. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made.
6. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Cr.No.5 of 2019 in
view of the mischief laid by his son. However, the petitioner is also
roped in as an accused in that case. The petitioner is having good
defence in the criminal trial and he also filed a petition before this
Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4910 of 2020 to quash the final report dated
26.08.2019 in P.R.C.No.56 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court
(Fast Track), Sivagangai. This Court, vide order dated 19.03.2020,
granted an order of interim stay of proceedings in PRC No.56 of 2019.
It is settled position that the pendency of criminal case is not a bar for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
the Department to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Girish and others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 636, has also held as
follows:
12. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the
subject for the legal position as emerging from the above
pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this
Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled
that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence
of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident
that while seriousness of the charge levelled against the
employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself
sufficient unless the case also involves complicated
questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found
to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law
that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in
mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be
suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly. In Paul
Anthony (supra) this Court went a step further to hold
that departmental proceedings can be resumed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier
in cases where the criminal trial does not make any
headway. To the same effect is the decision of this Court
in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.Meena 1996(6) SCC 417,
where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for
both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is
a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the
criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of
prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only
should the charge be grave but even the case must
involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of
proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter
of course. The following passage is in this regard
apposite:
“there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go
on simultaneously and then say that in certain
situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable'
or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary
enquiry when a criminal case is pending on
identical charges. The staying of disciplinary
proceedings, is a matter to be determined
having regard to the facts and circumstances of
a given case and that no hard and fast rules can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
enunciated in that behalf. The only ground
suggested in the above questions as constitution
a valid ground for staying the disciplinary
proceedings is that the defence of the employee
in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This
ground has, however, been hedged in by
providing further that this may be done in cases
of grave nature involving questions of fact and
law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not
only the charges must be grave but that the case
must involve complicated questions of law and
fact. Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or
'propriety', as the case may be, has to be
determined in each case taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case. While it is not possible to enumerate
the various factors, for and against the stay of
disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary
to emphasize some of the important
considerations in view of the fact that very
often the disciplinary proceedings are being
stayed for long periods pending criminal
proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
cannot be, and should not be, a matter of
course. All the relevant factors, for and against,
should be weighed and a decision taken keeping
in view the various principles laid down in the
decisions referred to above. … Indeed, in such
cases, it is all the more in the interest of the
charged officer that the proceedings are
expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases
really works against him.” (emphasis supplied)
13. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar
to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the
criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary
proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where
the criminal charge against the employee is grave and
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to
prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity
of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to
determine the question unless the charge involves
complicated question of law and fact. The Court
examining the question must also keep in mind that
criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially
where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses
cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to
draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the
accused on the one hand and the competing demand for
an expeditious conclusion of the on-going disciplinary
proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this
Court to be in the interest of the employees.
7. In this case, the disciplinary proceedings have already been
concluded. It is not known as to why the Enquiry Officer is awaiting
for Judgment of the criminal case. The principle which has to be
adopted in the criminal case is different and the principle which has to
be adopted in the departmental proceedings is different. Therefore, it is
open to the respondent to take a decision on the disciplinary
proceedings, which have already been completed by examining all the
witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent to take a decision on the departmental
proceedings pending against the petitioner, based on the enquiry report
submitted before him, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and take further course of action for
disbursement of retirement benefits due to the petitioner if any. No
costs.
04.02.2022
ogy
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.
To
The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Sivagangai Collectorate,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P(MD)No.22541 of 2021
04.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
