sought to stay discipline proceedings after criminal acquittal. Dismissed petition and ordered disciplinary authority to conclude the inquiry within six months.
The respondent is directed to conduct a fulfledged enquiry and conclude departmental disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.5689 of 2011 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
P.Daisy ... Petitioner
-vs-
(R1 and R2 are deleted
as per order of this Court in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 inW.P(MD)No.5669 of 2011, dated 5.4.2016) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,forbearing the respondents from continuing the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the Charge Memorandum issued by the third respondent vide Tha.Pa.No.22/H2/2011, dated 15.3.2011 until conclusion of the criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2011, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugarajasethupathi For Respondents : Deleted 1 and 2 For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Sethuraman Spl.Govt.Pleader
O R D E R
The charge memo issued by the third respondent in proceeding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 15.3.2011, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2
2.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that a criminal case was registered against the Writ Petitioner in Special C.C.No.5 of 2011, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchirappalli. Thus the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the criminal case. In other words, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner raised a sole ground that simultaneous proceedings are not permissible and the disciplinary authorities have to wait till the final disposal of the criminal case.
3.The Writ Petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Constable on 11.2.1981 in Tamil Nadu Police Service and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1996. Further promotion was granted as SubInspector of Police to the Writ Petitioner on 20.10.2004 and she was working in All Women Police Station, Musiri, since 2008. On account of the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing registered a criminal case against the Writ Petitioner in Crime No.20 of 2009. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, enlarged on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. Consequent to the registration of the criminal case, the Writ Petitioner was placed under suspension in proceeding, dated 8.8.2009 and chargememo was issued against the Writ Petitioner under Rule (3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Charges against the Writ Petitioner are extracted as under:
Fw;wk ;
“flikAk; nghWg;GzHTk; nfhz;l fhty;Jiwapy;> Krpwp midj;J kfspH fhty; epiyaj;jpy; fle;j 27.11.2008-e; Njjp Kjy; 07.08.2009-e; Njjp tiu gzpahw;wp jw;NghJ jw;fhypa Ntiy ePf ;fj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk;> ngz; cjtp Ma;thsH jpUkjp nla;rp Mfpa ePq ;fs; Nryk; khtl;lk; nfq;fts;sp tl;lk; Mj;J}Hnkapd; NuhL mq;fhsk;kd; Nfhtpy; njUtpy; trpf;Fk; tp[ad; kfd; ntq;flhrygjp vd;gtiu> mtuJ jk;gp NfhFy;ehj;- ~h;kpsh Mfpa ,UtUk; fy;ahzk; nra;J nfhz;lJ njhlHghd Krpwp midj;J kfspH fhty; epiya kD vz;.101 99 ehs;:28.05.2009 tprhuizapy; \ ntq;flh[ygjp vd;gtH kPjhd kD tprhuizia ngha;ahf tof;F vd;W nrhy;yp> mjpy; ntq;flh[ygjpia ifJ nra;ahky; ,Uf;F. 06.08.2009e; Njjp ,uT 21.00 kzpf;F Krpwp midj;J kfspH fhty; epiyaj;jpy; rhHG Ma;thsH miwapy; itj;J &.2000- ifA+l;lhf nfhL vd;W Nfl;L> me;jj; njhifia 07.08.2009-e; Njjp ,uT 20.45 kzpKjy; 21.00 kzpf;Fs; XH mYty; rhl;rpapd; Kd;epiyapy; Krpwp midj;J kfspH fhty; epiyaj;jpy; rhHG Ma;thsH miwapy; itj;J Nkw;gb ntq;fl[ygjpaplkpUe;J yQ;rk; thq;fpajhd flik jtwpa fz;bf;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;”.
4.Annexure-II to the charge-memo provides statement of imputations and Annexure-III provides list of documents and Annexure-IV denotes the list of witnesses to be examined during the enquiry proceedings. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is no infirmity as such in respect of the framing of the charges. However, the allegations against the Writ Petitioner are
3
also serious in nature, more specifically, in relation to the demand of bribe. Thus there cannot be any leniency in respect of corruption cases and Courts are to be cautious and exoneration has to be granted only after a ful-fledged enquiry, if at all the enquiry proceedings are proved.
5.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner made a submission that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the criminal case was disposed of and the Writ Petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges. However, it is made clear that mere acquittal in a criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
6.For convicting a person under the Criminal Law, high standard of proof is required. However, no such high standard of proof is required for punishing a Government employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The preponderance of probabilities are enough to punish a Government servant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and mere an order of acquittal will not exonerate a public servant from the clutches of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
7.It is made clear that the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted independently based on the charges and based on the list of documents and witnesses set out in the charge-memorandum. The Disciplinary Authority is at liberty to continue with the departmental disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the rules and by providing opportunity to the delinquent officials as per the rules. However, it is for the Writ Petitioner to prove her innocence before the enquiry proceedings to be conducted.
8.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner also states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to pursue the departmental disciplinary proceedings and a reasonable time limit may be fixed for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, this Court is bound to made clear that mere acquittal will not constitute a ground for the Writ Petitioner to seek exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The competent authorities are bound to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules. Opportunity contemplated under the rules are to be provided to the delinquent officials. The merits and demerits including the antecedents of the delinquent officials are to be considered while dealing with such disciplinary matters in relation to the corruption activities in the public service. This Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ leniency in respect of corruption cases. The Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again reiterated that mere delay will not be a ground for quashing all the corruption charges against a
4
public servant. Corruption becomes a menace in this great nation. It is spreading like cancer and causing more pain to the development of our great nation. Corruption is causing lot of inconvenience and injustice to the people in general. Thus the Courts cannot encourage such public servant, who are charged with corruption allegations. Of course, this Court is aware that it remains only as an allegation. However, it is for the Writ Petitioner to prove her innocence only by participating in the departmental disciplinary proceedings, more specifically, in the enquiry proceedings.
9.Corruption being a menace in recent years to the people, who fed up with the activities of the public servants, more specifically, in respect of corruptions. Corruption, favouritism, nepotism are acting against the constitutional mandates and perspectives. When the people are unable to get the equality in treatment by the State, then it is to be construed as a constitutional failure on the part of the State..Thus it is the duty mandate on the part of the State to see that equality clause enshrined under the constitution is provided to all the citizens without any discrimination. Under these circumstances, the question of showing any leniency would not arise at all. This Court is of an opinion that in the case on hand, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner relies on the judgement of the Criminal Court that the Writ Petitioner has already been acquitted, but the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2011 with a prayer to kept in abeyance the departmental disciplinary proceedings till the final disposal of the criminal case. By keeping the Writ Petition for about seven years, the Writ Petitioner certainly succeed in getting the relief without adjudicating the matter on merits,and by obtaining an interim order from this Court in this Writ Petition and by keeping the departmental disciplinary proceedings pending for about 7 ½ years. This Court with all pain, has to record that such attitude of the public servant are to be deprecated and Courts can never encourage such writ Petitions filed in order to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance, however, there is no good and sufficient reasons to do so.
10.It is equally important to record that the disciplinary authorities once initiated the departmental disciplinary proceedings, they should complete the same within a reasonable period of time. Long pendency of disciplinary proceedings will cause prejudice to the delinquent officials.If the departmental disciplinary p0roceedings are kept pending for years together, then the employee may not get his/her promotion, in the event of retirement or other benefits. Therefore keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for an unspecified period will cause https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prejudice to the employees also. Thus the disciplinary proceedings initiated must be concluded by the competent authorities within a reasonable period of time without causing any undue delay. This
5
principle is also to be followed by the disciplinary authorities. After framing of charges, they cannot keep the matter pending for years together. Thus, this Court would like to emphasize that the disciplinary authorities are to be cautious on initiation of disciplinary proceedings and conclusion of the same within a reasonable period of time.
11.Keeping in view the above principles, this Court is of an opinion that the criminal case registered against the Writ Petitioner was already disposed of and in respect of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the third respondent is directed to proceed with the same and conduct a ful-fledged enquiry by providing opportunity to the Writ Petitioner and conclude and pass final orders on the departmental disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli.
vsn
AE/MR/SAR3/21.02.2018/5P/4C
W.P.(MD) No.5689 of 2011
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 07.02.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings must be stayed upon acquittal in the corresponding criminal case.
Whether an interim order was appropriate given the long pendency of the writ petition without adjudication on merits.
P.Daisy
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
