[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
V.Vijayaraghavan vs Government Of Puducherry on 6 March, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 19.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06 .03.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No. 26950 of 2025
V.Vijayaraghavan
S/o. Late Venkatapathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Government of Puducherry
by its Chief Secretary
Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry – 605 001.
2. The Secretary to Government, CCD (CVO)
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry – 605 001.
3. The Secretary to Government (Transport),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry – 605 001.
4. Transport Commissioner
Government of Puducherry
Transport Department,
Puducherry – 605 004. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
and quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No. 506 of 2023 and
direct the respondents to grant and pay with retrospective effect all
pensionary and retirement benefits as per rule calculated on the basis of
applicable pay scale w.e.f 30.09.2013 to the petitioner.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. B.A.Sujay Prasanna
For Respondents : Mr. R.Syed Mustafa
Special Government Pleader
Puducherry
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The petitioner in O.A.No. 506 of 2023 aggrieved by the order of
dismissal of the said original application by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai Branch, by order dated 12.03.2025 is the petitioner
herein.
2. The petitioner had joined service in the Department of
Transport in the Government of Puducherry as Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector in 1984. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 27.06.2001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
and was officiating as Regional Transport Officer. When he was officiating
as Regional Transport Officer, Karaikkal, the Central Bureau of
Investigation registered a FIR against him for commission of offence
punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on a complaint for demand of
bribe.
3. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.07.2010 and
later the suspension was revoked on 22.08.2011 and he was permitted to
join duty.
4. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed in the
Additional Sessions Court at Karaikkal which was taken cognizance as
Special C.C.No.1 of 2010. By Judgment dated 06.03.2012, the petitioner
was convicted of the offences alleged against him.
5. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2012 before this
Court.
6. Even when the Criminal Appeal was pending, the petitioner, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
had attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2013 was removed from
service under Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
7. This Court had however allowed the Criminal Appeal by
Judgment dated 18.01.2018. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges.
Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking revocation of the
punishment of removal from service. That was not acceded to by the
respondents necessitating filing of the Original Application before the
Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.03.2025 had dismissed the
Original Application holding that the acquittal was not a honourable
acquittal. Questioning that particular order, this Writ Petition had been
filed.
9. Heard Mr.B.A.Suja Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader for Union
Territory of Puducherry for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
10. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was employed as
Regional Transport Officer at Karaikal, when on the basis of a complaint
lodged, the Central Bureau of Investigation had laid a trap and the
petitioner was said to have been caught red handed while demanding and
accepting bribe. In this connection, an FIR had also been registered for
offence punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequent to
the investigation, final report was filed before the Additional Sessions
Court at Karaikkal and taken cognizance as Special C.C.No. 1 of 2010. By
Judgment dated 06.03.2012, the petitioner was convicted of the offences.
11. The petitioner was removed from service on the last date of
service on 30.09.2013 invoking Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
Rule 19 provides the Special Procedure in certain cases and the Rule is as
follows:-
“19. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN
CERTAIN CASES:
Notwithstanding anything contained in rule
14 to rule 18-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a
Government servant on the ground of conduct
which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing
that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an
inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in
the interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner
provided in these rules,
the disciplinary authority may consider the
circumstances of the case and make such orders
thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may
be given an opportunity of making representation
on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any
order is made in a case under clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall
be consulted, where such consultation is necessary
*[and the Government servant has been given an
opportunity of representing against the advice of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
the Commission,] before any orders are made in
any case under this rule.”
12. The aforementioned mentioned rule gives leverage to the
disciplinary authority to impose punishment on a Government Servant on
the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction of a criminal charge.
13. The petitioner had however filed Criminal Appeal No. 185 of
2012 before this Court and by Judgment dated 18.01.2018, he was
acquitted of all charges. The petitioner therefore sent a representation
seeking interference with the punishment imposed by him. This was
rejected on the ground that the acquittal cannot be categorised as a
honourable acquittal.
14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that the
petitioner having been acquitted of all charges should necessarily have
been reinstated into service and the only option available for the
respondents was to proceed to file a further Appeal against the said
Judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel that the refusal to
revoke the punishment imposed should be interfered with by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
15. The learned Special Government Pleader however pointed out
that the acquittal was not a honourable acquittal and that therefore no
ground had been made to review the order of removal. It was contended
that when benefit of doubt had been given and acquittal follows on that
ground, then it cannot be considered as a honourable acquittal. It had been
stated that therefore, no grounds have been canvased to set aside the order
of removal from service.
16. We have carefully considered the arguments and perused the
materials available on records.
17. The only issue to be examined is whether the petitioner having
been acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2012 by
Judgment dated 18.01.2018, can take advantage of the said Judgment and
seek withdrawal or revocation of the punishment of removal from service.
The ancillary question which has to be answered is whether a Judgment of
acquittal can be classified as honourable or otherwise.
18. Any Judgment should be read as a whole to determine whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt or
whether the prosecution had failed to produce necessary evidence to prove
the charges or whether, on appreciation of evidence, there being two views
possible, the Court had acquitted the accused of the charges alleged.
19. When the Judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No. 185 of 2012 is
examined from that angle, it is seen that it had been very categorically held
that the prosecution had failed to prove payment and acceptance of bribe
by the petitioner herein. It had been held that the defacto complainant was
not present inside the room during the trap proceedings. It had also been
held that there was no credible evidence had been adduced to prove that the
petitioner had demanded the bribe amount. It had been further held that
the evidence of the witness who claimed that he was present when the
amount was accepted is highly doubtful and his presence itself was
doubtful. It had been held that his evidence lacks credibility.
20. The learned Single Judge of this Court further observed that the
amount which was recovered was a fine amount and though it was insisted
that it should be paid to the cashier, the same was handed over to the
petitioner with intention to falsely implicate him in the case. It had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
finally concluded as follows:-
“23. In the present case, the prosecution
has failed to prove the factum of demand and
acceptance of bribe by the accused with
acceptable evidence. The only other materials
available is recovery of tainted currency notes
from the possession of the accused. However, the
accused clearly explained that the calculated
penalty amount for the seized vehicle was
Rs.35,000/- and P.W.2 has left before the said
amount in his table, instead of remitting the same
with cashier. Further, as stated above, in the light
of contradictions between the statement recorded
by the Inspector of Police and the oral evidence of
the witnesses before the Court, the foundation of
the prosecution case has been shaken to great
extent. In such circumstances, grave doubt arises
about the veracity the case and the subsequent
events as projected by the prosecution, in my
considered opinion is not sufficient to prove the
guilt of the accused/appellant beyond all
reasonable doubts. Hence, the appellant is
entitled for benefit of doubt and the appeal is to be
entertained. The point is answered accordingly. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
21. A careful reading of the entire Judgment would show that the
acquittal was on the ground that the demand had not been proved and a
plausible explanation had been given for the possession of the amount
seized by the prosecution. The presence of the witness was termed highly
doubtful and the evidence tendered was termed as lacking credibility. Thus,
the very genesis of the prosecution case had failed.
22. Even otherwise, it would be highly improper to examine
whether the Judgment of the acquittal is a honourable acquittal or not. The
acquittal was based on no evidence produced by the prosecution. It is thus
clear that it can never be termed as extension of a benefit or a graze shown
to the petitioner. He had been acquitted because the witnesses marshalled
by the prosecution were disbelieved by the Court and the crux of the charge
had not been proved by the prosecution.
23. We hold that the decision of the Tribunal that the Judgment in
Crl.A.No. 185 of 2012 is not a honourable acquittal has to be set aside.
24. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents
are directed to pass appropriate orders setting aside the order of removal of
the petitioner from service and effect payment of all terminal benefits and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
other benefits payable to him on his retiring on attaining the age of
superannuation. No costs.
[C.V.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
06.03.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsg
To:
1. The Chief Secretary
Government of Puducherry
Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry – 605 001.
2. The Secretary to Government, CCD (CVO)
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry – 605 001.
3. The Secretary to Government (Transport),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry – 605 001.
4. Transport Commissioner
Government of Puducherry
Transport Department,
Puducherry – 605 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vsg
Pre-Delivery Order made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:58:14 pm )
