Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Jaber Sadiq on 19 March, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.591 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.591 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4244 of 2024
The District Collector,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant
vs.
Jaber Sadiq ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 11.11.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.21879 of
2019.
For Appellant : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General for
Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
W.A(MD)No.591 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 11.11.2019
made in W.P(MD)No.21879 of 2019.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
While the respondent / writ petitioner was working as a Deputy
Block Development Officer, (Admin) Panchayat Union, Thooppampatti,
he was arrested on 07.04.2015 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption, Dindigul, in a trap case. Therefore, he was suspended
from service and was paid subsistence allowance. The respondent made
a representation for revoking the suspension and the same was rejected
by order dated 08.02.2016, on the ground that final report has been filed
by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in the criminal
proceedings and based on the outcome of the case only, the request of
the petitioner for revoking the suspension can be considered.
Challenging the said order, the respondent filed W.P(MD)No.4666 of
2016 and this Court, by the order dated 08.03.2016, had granted an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
of interim stay. In view of the order of stay, on 21.09.2016 the appelant
has revoked the order of suspension and posted the respondent as a
Deputy Block Development Officer Camp Office, Dindigul.
2.1. While the respondent was working in the said capacity, a
panel for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer for the
year 2019-2020 was prepared. Out of 9 names in the panel, the
respondent's name was shown at Serial No.7 in the list. However, he
was not promoted. The appellant by proceedings dated 14.06.2019,
informed the respondent that in view of the pendency of the criminal
case as well as the charge memo dated 28.08.2017 issued to him under
Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, his name was not considered. Therefore, the respondent filed an
appeal dated 21.06.2019 before the appellant which came to be rejected
on 03.07.2019.
2.2. Against the said order, the respondent filed writ petition and
the Writ Court allowed the writ petition, holding that when criminal
proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are pending for long time, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
respondent can be promoted, after getting an affidavit of undertaking to
the effect that in the event of his failure in the criminal case, he can be
reverted to the lower post. Challenging the said order, this intra-court
appeal is filed by the District Collector.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the appellant would submit that the Writ Court
failed to consider that Schedule-XI(6) of Tamil Nadu Government
Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 specifically imposes a bar for
inclusion of a member of Government service in the approved list for
promotion, if he/she is arrested for an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case, the respondent was arrested
on 07.04.2015 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Dindigul, in a trap case and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have
allowed the writ petition, ignoring the specific bar for promotion as
stated above. He would further contend that Schedule-XI(8) of Tamil
Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 also
prohibits inclusion of the member of service in the approved list for
promotion, if such member of Government service is issued with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, without adverting to the
same, the Writ Court relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (3) CTC
129 in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. P.Rani, where,
it has been held that when criminal proceedings and disciplinary
proceedings are pending for long time, an employee can be promoted,
after getting an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that in the event of
his failure in the criminal case, he can be reverted to the lower post, and
allowed the writ petition. The said approach is completely erroneous
since the criminal case itself was registered in 2015 and therefore, it
cannot be said to be pending for a long time. Thus, the learned
Additional Advocate General would pray for setting aside the
impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state
that relying upon the judgment reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129 in the case
of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. P.Rani, the Writ Court has
rightly held that when criminal proceedings and disciplinary
proceedings are pending for a long time, the respondent can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
promoted, after getting an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that in
the event of his failure in the criminal case, he can be reverted to the
lower post. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The respondent/writ petitioner has been arrested on
07.04.2015 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Dindigul, in a trap case. He was also proceeded departmentally by
framing charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As rightly contended by the learned
Additional Advocate General, Schedule-XI(6) and (8) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 clearly imposes
a bar for inclusion of the respondent's name who was arrested in a trap
case and also issued with a 17(b) charge memo. Thus, on both the
grounds namely, arrest in a vigilance case and pendency of 17(b)
charges, the respondent is not entitled to be included in the approved
list for promotion in view of Schedule-XI(6) and (8) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
Writ Court has erroneously allowed the writ petition. Hence, this writ
appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 made in
W.P(MD)No.21879 of 2019, is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
19.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
The District Collector,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
