Madras High Court
V.Suresh Kumar vs The Sub Collector on 10 July, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.13796 of 2023
V.Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Collector,
Periyakulam,
Theni District-625 601.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Social Security Scheme,
Taluk Office,
Andipatti,
Theni District-625 512. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
to keep the departmental proceedings in reference number Na.Ka.No.
6154/2018/m2> in abeyance till the culmination of the case in Spl.C.C No. 1 of
2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Special Judge for
Prevention and Anti-Corruption Cases) Theni.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the first
respondent to keep the departmental proceedings in reference number
Na.Ka.No.6154/2018/m2> in abeyance till the culmination of the case in
Spl.C.C No. 1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Special Judge for Prevention and Anti-Corruption Cases) Theni.
2. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at
Thimmarasanayakkanur Pit-II Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. A case
was registered against the petitioner by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Theni in Crime No.4 of 2018 arraying the petitioner as accused No.
1 for the offences under Section 7 r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018 on the allegation that on 26.11.2018, the petitioner
demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- from V.Rengaraj, S/o.Venkitasamy to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
issue No Patta Property Certificate for issuance of free patta for Natham
Proromboke land in S.F.No.22/4 of Shanmugasundaram Village. Thereafter,
charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer of the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Police Station, Theni in the said crime and the same was taken on
file as Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Special Judge for Prevention and Anti-Corruption Cases), Theni on
06.02.2020.
4. While the petitioner was preparing to face the criminal case, the first
respondent had issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to the petitioner on 17.08.2020.
The petitioner made a detailed reply on 02.09.2020 for the said charge memo.
The charge memo was issued along with 4 annexures, contemplating
departmental proceedings and enquiry against the petitioner. The first and
second annexures containing the charges with reasons for framing those
charges. The third annexure contained the list of documents and the fourth
annexure contained the list of 9 witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
5. The first respondent appointed the second respondent as the Enquiry
Officer. Subsequently, on 28.06.2023, a summon was issued to the petitioner by
the second respondent by post requiring the petitioner to appear before the
Taluk Office, Andipatti for an enquiry, which is scheduled at 11.00 am on
11.07.2023. List of documents and list of witnesses scheduled in fourth
annexure are one and very same and both in the departmental proceedings as
well as in the charge sheet in Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2020 pending on the file of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni are similar.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents and carefully perused the materials
available on record.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied in the case reported
in 2014 STPL 5133 SC (Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V
and Others) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has dealt with the
similar case. The relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:
“16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the
holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
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.......”
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner requested the mercy of this
Court by insisting that almost 9 witnesses, who are cited in annexure 4 to the
charge memo especially witnesses 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 20 are also the
witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings. After witnesses, who were listed in
the charge sheet, only 9 are brought in the departmental enquiry and hence,
conduct of departmental proceedings simultaneously along with the Special
C.C.No.1 of 2020 would amount to free tutoring on material facts during cross-
examination in criminal case and hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
insisted to allow the writ petition thereby, keeping the disciplinary proceedings
in abeyance till the culmination of the special case.
9. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents relying on G.O(Ms)No.66, dated 06.07.2022 of the Human
Resources Management (N) Department strongly contended that no prejudice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
will be caused to the petitioner, if departmental proceedings and the criminal
proceedings are conducted hand in hand, relying clause 22 of the said G.O,
which is extracted as follows:
“22. Any failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to
initiate simultaneous departmental proceedings against the
Government Servants in criminal cases connected with the
discharge of their official duties (including Trap and Arrest Case)
will be viewed seriously and it will entail severe action to be
initiated against the officials responsible for it.”
10. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents pressed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. This Court is of the considered view that expeditious conclusion of
departmental proceedings in the interest of the employer as well as the
employee. Pendency of these proceedings are more prejudicial to the service
carrier of the delinquent employee. Unless seriously substantial and
complicated questions of fact and law, based on identical facts, arise in the
departmental and criminal proceedings, which required to be determined by the
Court of competent jurisdiction, it will not be appropriate to stay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial as a matter
of rule. In the present case, the charge has been framed as against the
delinquent and moreover already whatever the defense, which the petitioner is
likely to take in the criminal proceedings has been pleaded by the petitioner. As
per para 3 of his affidavit, more probably the defence would be that no money
was recovered from the petitioner and also he did not make any demand or
receive money and the Village Assistant was the person, who found to have
received the tainted money and thereafter, he was arrested and hence, it would
not be appropriate to pass an order to keep the departmental proceedings in
abeyance.
12. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in the case of Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in
[MANU/PH/2103/2003], dated 11.09.2003, while dealing with the similar case
in paragraph Nos.7 to 9, the Court has held as follows:
“7. “In a recent judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court
has also taken the view that even (if) the proceedings
before the Civil Court and / or the criminal Court are
based on the same cause of action, the proceedings
before both should be permitted to continue
simultaneously as it is not necessary that findings arrived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
at by the Civil Court shall be binding over the criminal
Court. They would also not supersede the findings
recorded by the others. This view was taken in the case of
K.G.Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police and Another,
JT 2002 (7) SC 30 and it was held that the view expressed
by the Apex Court in the case of V.M.Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another 1995 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 416:
1995(3) R.R.R 300: JT 1995(6) SC 433 is not the correct
view. It is indicative of the fact that continuation of
proceedings founded on the common cause necessary
need not lead to an inevitable result of staying one during
the pendency of the other. This view can be appropriately
applied to the proceedings before the criminal and
departmental proceedings on the principle of ratio
decidendi. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to hold
as a principle of law that the departmental proceedings
ought to be stayed if on somewhat similar facts or cause
criminal proceedings were initiated before the competent
Court of jurisdiction against the delinquent officer. It is a
settled principle of law that the ambit, scope and
consequences of these two proceedings are entirely
distinct and different. On the analysis of the afore-stated
principle it could fairly be stated that stay of
departmental proceedings on the ground of pendency of
criminal proceedings would not be a rule but an
exception which could be applied only upon satisfaction
on the afore-noticed conditions precedent.”
8. We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Som Parkash Wadhawan Vs. The Uttari Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam and Others, CWP No.4037 of 2000, decided on
12.04.2000 and Birbal ALM Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board,
Panchkula and Others, 2003 (1) SLR 39 where the Court declined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
to stay the departmental proceedings as a result of pendency of
criminal proceedings against the delinquent officers.
9. Expeditious conclusion of departmental proceedings is in
the interest of the employer as well as the employee. Pendency of
these proceedings is more prejudicial to the service career of the
delinquent employee. Unless seriously substantial and
complicated questions of fact and law, based on identical facts,
arise in the departmental and criminal proceedings, which require
to be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction, it will not
be appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings during
pendency of the criminal trial as a matter of rule...........”
13. In another case, Anupama Naik Vs. The Standard Chartered Bank
and Others reported in [MANU/MH/0359/2007] dated 21.06.2007 in
paragraph No.14, the Court has held as follows:
“15.There is no accepted percept of law to support the
contention that in every case, where a departmental inquiry and
criminal charge are based on similar facts, the progress of the
departmental inquiry essentially must be stayed till the conclusion
of the criminal trial. This could lead to results which are not the
intent of the theme of law. There can be cases where it may be
appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings; but in such
cases, the ingredients noticed in various judgments must be
satisfied. Pendency of criminal proceedings initiated on somewhat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
similar facts by itself would not be a sufficient ground for staying
the departmental proceedings. They are independent proceedings,
which fall under different jurisdiction of various fora or Courts.
Unless the charges are so inter-mingled, and the evidence in
support thereof is complex and technical, it may not be
appropriate for the bank to continue the proceedings in the face of
regular trial before the criminal Court. Loss of confidence may
not be the cause which will squarely fall, in view of the well
settled principles of law, in such category. Prejudice to an
employee is one of the factors which the Court would consider by
heeding to such a request. Prejudice is not to be inferred. It is
something which should be apparent on the record, and the
delinquent should be able to demonstrate that prejudice likely to
be suffered by him is to such an extent that judicial intervention
would be essential. Whenever an employee is involved in
corruption or any other case constituting criminal offence,
commencement of the departmental proceedings is inevitable. If
the submission of the petitioner is to be accepted, in all such
cases, departmental proceedings should be stayed awaiting
conclusion of criminal trial, which would mean that for years
together, finality of criminal trial would not be there, unless and
until final Court's pronouncement of judgment upon guilt of the
accused or otherwise. That does not appear to be the intent of the
service jurisprudence or criminal law, in light of the above stated
judicial dictum.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
14. In view of the G.O(Ms)No.66 of the Human Resources Management
(N) Department dated 06.07.2022 referred by the learned Special Government
Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that it is not
necessary to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the culmination
of the case in Special C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (Special Judge for Prevention and Anti-Corruption Cases), Theni
and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if both the proceedings are
proceeded hand in hand.
15. In fine, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
10.07.2023
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
1.The Sub Collector,
Periyakulam,
Theni District-625 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Social Security Scheme,
Taluk Office,
Andipatti,
Theni District-625 512.
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
BTR
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.16500 of 2023
10.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
