Madras High Court
S.Muthuselvan vs The District Collector on 10 January, 2022
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
and
W.M.P. (MD) No. 12000 of 2020
S.Muthuselvan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondent to defer with the enquiry proceedings initiated in pursuant to
the charge memo issued in Na.Ka.No.Nu5/28377/2016, dated 03.08.2016
till the disposal of the criminal case in S.C. No. 2 of 2018 pending on the
file of the learned Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act)
Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to defer
the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the
Charge Memo in Na.Ka.No.Nu5/28377/2016, dated 03.08.2016, till the
disposal of the criminal case in S.C. No. 2 of 2018, which is pending on
the file of the learned Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act)
Tirunelveli.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Engineer in the Rural
Development Department, was arrested in Crime No. 3 of 2016, by the
Inspector of Police (Vigilance and Anti-corruption) Department on
20.07.2016, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was also slapped with
a charge memo on 03.08.2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that
the witnesses in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are
one and the same. If the departmental proceedings is taken up for
investigation, the petitioner will raise certain points during examination
and those points may be filled up by the respondent during the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
before the pending criminal case and it would definitely affect his
chances of acquittal in the criminal case.
3. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 in the case of State Bank of India
and others vs. Neelam Nag submits that pendency of a criminal case is
not a bar to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"21. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour
of the respondent of staying the ongoing disciplinary
proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of
prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as
directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do
not consider it fit to vacate the arrangement straightway.
Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be
sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending
against the respondent to be decided expeditiously but
not later than one year from the date of this order. The
trial Court shall take effective steps to ensure that the
witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-
to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight
when necessary.
22. We also direct that the respondent shall extend
full co-operation to the trial Court for an early disposal
of the trial, which includes co-operation by the Advocate
appointed by her.
23. If the trial is not completed within one year
from the date of this order, despite the steps which the
trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by
the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to
the respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in
abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon
expiring of the period of one year from the date of this
order."
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submits that
sofar two witnesses were examined and due to pandemic situation, the
trial could not be conducted coupled with the fact that the there is no
Presiding Officer. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
5. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2016 in a trap proceedings
by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and a case in Crime
No. 3 of 2016, has been registered against the petitioner, for the offences
under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The Vigilance and Anticorruption Department has
also filed the final report against the petitioner, which was taken on file
in S.C. No. 2 of 2018 by the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption
Act) Tirunelveli. Though the final report has been filed in the year 2018,
it appears that there is no progress in the trial.
7. The grievances of the petitioner is that the witnesses in the
departmental proceedings and in the criminal case are one and the same
and if the enquiry is allowed to be proceeded, the petitioner will be
forced to reveal his defence, which will affect his interest and right. It is
a settled law that the pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for the
Department to proceed with the departmental proceedings. Even if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
petitioner is acquitted, the power of the authority to continue the
departmental inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion in any way
fettered. If the authority feels that there is sufficient evidence and good
grounds to proceed with, it can certainly do so.
8. Though the final report has been filed in the year 2018 and sofar
two witnesses were examined, due to pandemic situation the trial could
not be completed coupled with the fact that the there is no Presiding
Officer. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and
the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491) (cited supra), this Court issues the
following directions:
(i) The Special Court (Prevention of Corruption
Act) Tirunelveli shall conclude the said case pending
in S.C. No. 2 of 2018 within a period of one year from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) If the trial is not concluded within a
stipulated period, it is open to the Department to
proceed with the departmental proceedings pursuant
to the charge memo in Na.Ka.No.Nu5/28377/2016,
dated 03.08.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.01.2022
Index :Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
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 District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vji
W.P (MD) No. 14351 of 2020
and
W.M.P. (MD) No. 12000 of 2020
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
