Madras High Court
T.Saravanan vs India on 13 June, 2022
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13-06-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP Nos.25954 of 2013 and 14488 of 2014
And
MP Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
T.Saravanan .. Petitioner in both WPs
vs.
The Inspector General of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008. .. R-1 in both WPs
The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008. .. R-2 in both WPs
The Superintendent of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008. .. R-3 in both Wps
The Additional Director General of Police,
(Law and Order),
Chennai – 600 004. .. R-4 in WP 14488/2014
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
WP 25954 of 2013 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the orders of the first and third respondents dated
13.03.2013 and 06.11.2012 issued in their poceedings in
R.C.No.A2/5669/2012 and Na.Ka.No.F1/P.R.29/2005 respectively and
quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to pay all
consequential service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.
WP 14488 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the orders of the third respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.F1/P.R.31/2005 dated 09.07.2012 acknowledged by
the petitioner dated 30.10.2012 issued in his poceedings in
R.C.No.A2/3918/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the third
respondent to pay all consequential service and monetary benefits to the
petitioner, including eligible promotion on par with his immediate junior.
For Petitioner in both WPs : Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy
For Respondents in both Wps : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
COMMON ORDER
The writs on hand have been instituted questioning the validity
of the order of punishment and also the appellate order confirming the
punishment imposed by the Original Authority.
2. The writ petitioner was working in Railway Police as
Constable. A criminal case was registered against him during the year 2005
with an allegation that instead of handing over the seized Ganja bundles in
the train to the Railway Police Station, the petitioner sold the seized Ganja
bundles to a seller, namely, Chinnammal and utilised the said money for his
personal purpose. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and
the petitioner was placed under suspension on 02.05.2005. For his
involvement in a criminal case, two charge memos were issued under Rule
3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeal
Rules. The first charge memo dated 10.08.2005 under 3(b) issued in PR
No.29/2005 reveals that the charge memo against the writ petitioner is that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
he was involved in the criminal case and committed an offence. Another
charge memo dated 16.08.2005 in PR No.31/2005 states that the writ
petitioner did not stay at Jolarpet as mentioned in the suspension order
during the period of suspension and he send the medical leave applications
to the authorities during the period of suspension contrary to the rules.
Further, the petitioner refused to receive the instructions directing him to
stay at Headquarters of Jolarpet during the period of suspension and to
appear for the enquiry at Erode. The departmental enquiry was conducted
with reference to the charges framed against the writ petitioner.
3. The writ petitioner filed WP No.11869 of 2006, challenging
the charge memo. The writ petition was dismissed on 18.03.2011 and in the
meanwhile, the criminal case registered against the writ petitioner ended
with an order of acquittal. Thus, the order of suspension was revoked.
However, based on the departmental enquiry proceedings, the third
respondent issued the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for two
years without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
the second respondent and the said appeal was also rejected. Further, the
review was also rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that
in identical circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP
No.29289 of 2010 has taken a view that the Department cannot impose the
punishment if the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal. The order
of suspension was in the year 2013. Relying on the said order, the learned
counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was
acquitted from the criminal case and therefore, the impugned punishment,
though a minor punishment, is to be set aside.
5. Based on the principles settled by the Apex Court, the
Madurai Bench of this Court has passed orders in WP(MD) No.17378 of
2019 dated 21.02.2022, wherein in paragraph-5 of the said judgment, it has
been observed as under:-
“5. Regarding simultaneous proceedings
(i.e.departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
case), this Court has elaborately considered the issue and
the following principles have been summarized:-
(i) It is a settled law that criminal case and the
departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated
simultaneously as the case may be;
(ii) An order of suspension, if required, may be
issued in the prescribed format as per the rules;
(iii) If the records and evidences are available with
the disciplinary authority, then without any loss of time,
charge memorandum shall be issued and the disciplinary
proceedings may go on;
(iv) The question to be considered is whether
simultaneous proceedings may go on or not?;
(v) The departmental domestic enquiry and the
criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the
decision in the criminal case would not materially affect
the outcome of the domestic enquiry;
(vi) The nature of both proceedings and the test
applied to reach final conclusion in the matter are entirely
different.
(vii) If the case involves complicated questions of
fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in
possession of the required materials for the purpose of
conducting enquiry, then administrative decision may be
taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance.
till the disposal of the criminal case. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
advisability and desirability has to be determined
considering the facts of each case by the authority
concerned. Therefore, it would be expedient that the
disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as
expeditiously as possible.
(viii) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to
go on simultaneously.
(ix) Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar
an employer from exercising power in accordance with
service rules and regulations in force. The two
proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely
different. They operate in different fields and have
different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is
to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose
of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the
delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in
accordance with service rules.
(x) In the criminal case, the burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove
the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he
cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental
enquiry, on the other hand penalty can be imposed on the
delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
'preponderance of probability'. To convict a person under
criminal law, high standard of proof is required. Even the
benefit of doubt would be a benefit for the accused in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
criminal case. However, no such strict proof is required in
a departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there
is absolutely no bar for the respondents to continue the
departmental disciplinary proceedings and conclude the
same and pass final orders.
(xi) An order of conviction if any passed in the
criminal case or in criminal appeal, after disposal of the
disciplinary proceedings, then if necessary the Head of the
department or the Government may exercise the power of
review as the case may be under the relevant rules.
(xii) Order of acquittal if at all passed in the
criminal case or in criminal appeal, the same would not
affect the final orders already passed in the departmental
disciplinary proceedings based on the domestic enquiry
conducted, in view of the fact that acquittal in a criminal
case cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration from the
departmental disciplinary proceedings.
(xiii) If the criminal case was registered under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and if the original
records are seized by the investigating agency, then the
disciplinary authority may obtain the true copies of the
documents and proceed with the departmental disciplinary
proceedings.
(xiv) As far as the departmental corruption
allegations are concerned, it is not necessary that the
disciplinary authority should wait for the final disposal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
the criminal case registered under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988”.
6. It is the settled principle that pendency of criminal case is not
a bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even
during the pendency of the criminal case if the Disciplinary Authority is
having materials on record to proceed with the enquiry, then there is no
impediment and the authority is well within its power to proceed with the
enquiry, conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate final
orders. In case of conviction in a criminal case, subsequent proceedings can
be initiated in accordance with the Rules in force. Therefore, even in case of
acquittal in a criminal case, the Department is empowered to continue the
disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment as contemplated under the
Discipline and Appeal Rules. In the present cases, two set of charges are
framed. The said charges are not only with reference to the allegations in the
criminal case, but also relating to the other misconducts. Therefore, the very
ground raised by the petitioner is untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
7. In the present cases, the respondents have considered the
order of acquittal and imposed minor penalty of stoppage of increment for
two years without cumulative effect. In the event of conviction, major
penalty would have been imposed. Thus, the authorities have applied their
mind and in respect of the proved charges of misconduct in the departmental
disciplinary proceedings, they have imposed minor punishment of stoppage
of increment for two years without cumulative effect and such a punishment
cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the writ petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case with reference to the charges framed in the
criminal case.
8. This being the factum established, this Court do not find any
infirmity in respect of the impugned order of punishment as well as the
appellate order and revision order, confirming the order of punishment.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
13-06-2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
To
1.The Inspector General of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Police (Railways),
Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
(Law and Order),
Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos.25954 of 2013
and
14488 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 25954 of 2013
and
WP 14488 of 2014
13-06-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
