The High Court quashed a charge memo issued after an 11-year delay against an employee who had been acquitted in a connected criminal case. Relying on the principle that identical charges and evidence make subsequent disciplinary proceedings oppressive, the court held the charge memo invalid.
Charge memo quashed; Writ Appeal allowed.
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.
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022 in C.M.P.(MD)No.11859 of 2022
S.V.Muruganandam ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-2. ... Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 23.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No. 15826 of 2021 and thereby allow the present writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondent : Mr.V.OM.Prakash Government Advocate
1/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
ORDER
( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
case ended in acquittal on 27.02.2020. The grievance of the appellant is
that instead of allowing him to retire from service with all benefits, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-2 issued the charge memo dated 22.07.2021. Questioning the same, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No. 15826 of 2021. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2022. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.
acquittal by the criminal court would not debar the employer from exercising the jurisdiction in accordance with service rules and regulations. The legal position enunciated by the learned single Judge is beyond dispute. The question that calls for consideration is whether the respondent was justified in issuing the charge memo in the facts and circumstances of this case. The cause of action had arisen as early as on 29.07.2010. Since there was no legal bar for conducting the departmental proceedings simultaneously, the respondent need not have waited till 22.07.2021 for issuing the charge memo. The charge memo has been issued with a delay of more than 11 years. There is no explanation of this delay. Secondly, the charge set out in the charge
3/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
memo as well as the criminal case are founded on the same set of facts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 (Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan) had held that where the charges are identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are of the same, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the employer cannot be allowed. They stand in the teeth of the Judgment of acquittal. Paragraph No.13 of the said Judgment is as follows:-
“13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)].”
4/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
in service was on account of the pendency of the criminal case. Once the criminal case ended in acquittal, consequences ought to have necessarily followed in favour of the appellant. The authority was never barred from taking any departmental enquiry parallely. The appellant had come under the adverse notice in the year 2010. Nothing stopped the employer from initiating departmental enquiry as well as concluding the same. They need not have waited till the outcome of the criminal case. Vide order dated 09.03.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.9031 of 2020, one of us (G.R.S.J) had observed as follows:-
“9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in W.A.No.1573 of 2017 dated 30.11.2017 (M.Gokulakrishnan Vs RTO, Nagapattinam). In the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench had quashed the charge memo on the ground that there is no independent application of mind by the competent authority and the charge memo was mechanically framed. The criminal prosecution and the charge memo are founded on the same set of facts. Before the criminal Court, the defacto complainant Nagarajan stood his ground. He did not turn hostile. The acquittal was on merits.”
5/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
C.Muthu Krishnan was a co-delinquent and in his case, the charge memo was quashed vide order dated 23.01.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.19257 of 2022.
(G.R.S., J.) (R.P., J.) 05.12.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi
To
The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-2.
6/7
W.A(MD) No.1475 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
rmi
W.A.(MD) No.1475 of 2022
05.12.2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after acquittal in a criminal case based on identical facts?
Whether excessive delay in issuing charge memo vitiates departmental proceedings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Lal Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶28
Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 (Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan)
G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & OthersReferred¶29
G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 · Who else cites this
State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata RaoReferred¶29
State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 · Who else cites this
M.Gokulakrishnan Vs RTO, NagapattinamReferred¶35
W.A.No.1573 of 2017 dated 30.11.2017 (M.Gokulakrishnan Vs RTO, Nagapattinam)
S.V. Muruganandam
The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai-2
G.R. Swaminathan
R. Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
