Madras High Court
C.Balamurugan vs The Secretary To Government on 8 December, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
and
MP(MD)No.1 of 2015
and
WMP(MD)No.12251 of 2017
C.Balamurugan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Directorate of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Director,
Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
4.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Collectorate Complex,
Korampallam, Tuticorin. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned charge memo passed by the second respondent in his
proceedings No.Pa O Na.2(1)135295/2010, dated 31.08.2015 and quash
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/24
W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panner Selvam
For Respondents : Mr.P.Mahendran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The charge memo, dated 31.08.2015, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner was working as Agriculture Officer. On account of certain serious allegations, the petitioner was placed under suspension in proceedings, dated 31.01.2012 and thereafter, the Joint Director of Agriculture, issued the order of suspension and framed the charges. The writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.11003 of 2013, challenging the impugned order, dated 26.06.2012, which is the charge memo issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture. This Court passed an order on 30.08.2013 as follows:-
“...23.In the light of the above discussion and following the decision cited supra, this court is inclined to quash the charge memorandum. The order of suspension reads that malpractices, http://www.judis.nic.in 2/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 misappropriation and falsification of Government records and swindle the Government money Rs.1,30,73,539/- have been noticed in the implementation of scheme of cultivation of Jatropha during the year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 in Tuticorin District. Only in April 2008, the petition has been allocated to Horticulture Department. The facts stated in the order of suspension is serious. However, in the light of the serious allegations, it is also made clear that quashing of the charge memorandum would not restrict the power of the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension or initiate disciplinary proceedings, if the circumstances warrant.”
3.Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the present impugned charge memo was issued by the Director of Agriculture/second respondent in proceedings, dated 31.08.2015. The said charge memo is, under challenge in the present writ petition.
4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly raised a ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the charge memo. The first charge memo was issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture and the said charge memo was quashed by this Court. However, liberty was granted to the authorities to frame the charge memo again. The second charge memo is now issued by the Director of Agriculture, who is also an incompetent authority. The writ petitioner, http://www.judis.nic.in 3/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 pursuant to the bifurcation of Horticulture Department, was transferred to the Department of Agriculture and therefore, the Director of Agriculture, who is an incompetent authority to institute the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the Director of Agriculture has no control over the writ petitioner and the petitioner is now under the control of the Horticulture Department and therefore, the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioner was not permanently absorbed in the Department of Horticulture. The lien is now with the Department of Agriculture and this apart, the misappropriation is for more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and therefore, the Government also issued orders authorising the Director of Agriculture to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the ground raised by the writ petitioner is untenable. The procedures are followed. The Government also issued orders. Even as per the bifurcation order issued in G.O.Ms.No.537, dated 24.12.2007, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 the Director of Agriculture is competent to institute disciplinary proceedings. In view of this, the impugned order is in accordance with the procedures contemplated and the writ petition is to be dismissed.
7.The counter filed by the respondents reveals that the earlier writ petition was filed on the ground that the Joint Director of Agriculture has no jurisdiction. However, after the orders of this Court, again the issues were considered. The writ petitioner was transferred to Horticulture Department on service limit basis. Based on his option to go to the Horticulture Department, as per the instructions given in the restructure of Agriculture and sister Department vide G.O.Ms.No.537, dated 24.12.2007. But the petitioner and other Officers opted to continue/go back to Horitculture Department, are not permanently absorbed till date in the Department of Horticulture. Thus, the lien is continued with the parent Department. They are under the control of the Director of Agriculture, who is the Cater Management Authority as per G.O.Ms.No.537. The petitioner is working in the cadre of Assistant Agriculture Officer and the District Joint Director of Agriculture concerned is the appointing authority as per the existing TNAESS Rules till the permanent absorption is materialized.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
8.Thus, it is made clear that the petitioner is not permanently absorbed till date in the Department of Horticulture and he is having a lien in the Department of Agriculture and the Cadre Management Authority is the Director of Agriculture.
9.It is relevant to make reference in G.O.Ms.No.537, Agriculture (AA 8) Department, dated 24.12.2007, wherein it has been specifically stated that the powers of imposing major punishments shall be vested with Cadre Controlling Authority viz., Director of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Horticulture and Plantation Crops.
10.It is also necessary to rely upon Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, which runs as follows:-
“Rule 9.A. Provided that in the case of Government Servants belonging to different departments who are jointly involved or whose cases are interconnected, the Government shall be the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in rule 8 and in such cases the administrative Department of Secretariat in respect of the Government Servant who holds the highest post will initiate such http://www.judis.nic.in 6/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 disciplinary proceedings and issue final orders after complying with the entire procedure laid down in these rules”.
11.Based on the orders of this Court, the charge memo issued against the petitioner was subsequently cancelled by the fourth respondent through Ni.6/10970/2010, dated 11.12.2013. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had forwarded the entire papers in respect of malpractices of the officers including the petitioner to the Commissioner of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, vide No.DCS II(1)/135295/10, dated 11.02.2014 for suitable action for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, various points were considered by both the second and third respondents herein and the third respondent expressed his inability and difficulty to conduct enquiry against the petitioner for the reason that first of all, Jatropha Development Scheme has been implemented only by the second respondent herein and till the date, the scheme is under the control of the second respondent herein. Particularly, all the documents with reference to the scheme as well as malpractices committed by the petitioner and other 13 officials are vested with the second respondent and it is under the maintenance and control of the second respondent. Further, the whole details of the scheme and malpractices committed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 7/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 petitioner are absolutely known only by the second respondent and his subordinates. They have absolute knowledge about the whole episode. Whereas, the third respondent has no role to play with the scheme or grave misconduct is committed by the petitioner.
12.The question is as to whether, the second respondent or the third respondent is competent to conduct disciplinary proceedings. In that connection, pursuant to the communication of the second respondent addressed to the third respondent herein, by way of the communication made in No.DCS.II/2627/14, dated 21.05.2014, the Commissioner of Horticulture and Plantation Crops suggested that the proposal may be forwarded to the superior authority, namely, the first respondent herein for conducting fresh enquiry. Thereafter, the second respondent herein by communication in Letter No.DCS.II(1)/135295/2010, dated 03.07.2014 addressed to the first respondent herein explained in detail about the whole issue on hand and also the view of the third respondent herein. In turn, the first respondent by his communication in Letter No. 17303/AA7/2014-3, dated 21.05.2015 having considered all the disputes, appointed the second respondent as an Enquiry Officer to initiate the disciplinary proceedings afresh against the petitioner and also http://www.judis.nic.in 8/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 requested the second respondent to send enquiry report for suitable further action.
13.The petitioner specifically contend that the second respondent is not competent to issue charge memo. But as per Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, it is made clear that the Government is absolutely the competent authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings or the authorized authority appointed by the Government is competent to conduct enquiry. As stated above, by way of order made on 21.05.2015, the second respondent herein is appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has been directed to file enquiry report also. Further, the terms of G.O.Ms.No.537, dated 24.12.2007 also prescribed that the Director of Agriculture is also one of the authorities authorized. Hence, the second respondent is a competent authority and he has vested powers to frame charges against the petitioner. The third respondent also vide his D.O. Letter O.Na.P1.2/2627/2014, dated 16.06.2015 instructed that the second respondent can conduct disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner.
14.Let us examine the charges framed against the petitioner, http://www.judis.nic.in 9/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 which reads as under:-
“Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;-1 J}j;Jf;Fo khtl;lj;jpy; 2007-2008k; Mz;L Kjy; 2009-2010k; Mz;L Koa fhl;lhkzf;F rhFgo Cf;Ftpg;g[j; jpl;lk; bray;gLj;jg;gl;ljpy; ,th; jpU.I.n$hrg; e];nud; gpnuk;> ntshz;ik mYtyh; MfpnahUld; Tl;lhf nrh;e;J U:. 1>01>69>369/- (U:gha; xU nfhona xU yl;rj;J mWgj;J xd;gjhapuj;J Kd;D}w;W mWgj;J xd;gJ kl;Lk;) tptrhapfSf;F tHq;fg;gl ntz;oa khd;aj; bjhif ifahly; bra;ag;gLtjw;F fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;.
jpU.br.ghyKUfd;> cjtp ntshz;ik mYtyh;> ,j;jpl;lk; brayhf;f fhyj;jpy; ntshz;ik Jiwapy; 21.04.2008 Koa cjtp ntshz;ik mYtyh; (tpij bgUf;Fj;jpl;lk;)> tpshj;jpFsk; Mft[k; 22.04.2008 Kjy; 08.04.2013 Koa njhl;lf;fiyj;Jiwapyl tpshj;jpFsk;
jiyikaplj;jpy; cjtp ntshz;ik mYtyuhft[k; 09.04.2013 Kjy; jw;nghJ tiu njhl;lf;fiyj; Jiwapy; jpUitFe;jk; jiyikaplj;jpy; cjtp ntshz;ik mYtyuhft[k; gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;.
fhl;lhkzf;F rhFgo Cf;Ftpg;g[j; jpl;l Kiwnfl;oy; jpU.I.n$hrg; ernud; gpnuk;> ntshz;ik mYtyh; (jw;nghJ jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk;) ntshz;ik ,iz ,af;Feh;> J}j;Jf;Fo mYtyfk; rh.Rg;gpukzpad;> Kd;dhs; ntshz;ik mYtyh;> cHth; gapw;rp epiyak;> J}j;Jf;Fo (jw;nghJ ntshz;ik mYtyh;)> fPiHa{h;> ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;lk; MfpnahUld; ,ize;J Tl;Lr; rjpapy; <Lgl;L> nghyp khd;a tpz;zg;gq;fs; jahhpj;jy;> nghyp ifbahg;gkpLjy;> Mfpa Fw;wr; bray;fs; K:yk; Kiwnfl;oy; <Lgl;L U:.1>01>69>369/- muR gzj;jpid nkw;fz;l mYtyh;fSld; ,ize;J ifahly; bra;Js;shh;.
fhl;lhkzf;F rhFgo Cf;Ftpg;g[j; jpl;lj;jpid bray;gLj;j ve;j MizfSk; ,tUf;F tHq;fg;glhj epiyapy; jdJ gzpg; bghWg;gf[ ;F rw;Wk; vt;tpj bjhlh;g[k; ,y;yhj ,j;jpl; http://www.judis.nic.in bray;ghl;oy; jpU.I.n$hrg; ernud; gpnuk;> ntshz;ik mYtyh; 10/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
(jw;fhy;f gzp ePf;fk;) kw;Wk; jpU.rh.Rg;gpukzpad;> ntshz;ik mYtyh; MfpnahUld; ,ize;J jdJ fl;Lg;ghl;L mYtyhpd; mDkjp VJk; bgwhknyna ,k;Kiwnfl;oy; <Lgl;Ls;shh; 22.04.2008 Kjy; njhl;lf;fiy kw;Wk; kiyg;gaph;fs; Jiwf;F Jiw khWjypy; brd;W tpl;l epiyapYk;> vt;tpj mDkjpa[kpd;wp njhl;lf;fiy kw;Wk; kiyg;gaph;fs; Jiwf;F vt;tpjj;jpYk; bjhlh;gpy;yhj ntshz;ik Jiw rhh;e;j ,j;jpl;lj;jpy; bjhlh;eJ ;
Kiwnfl;oy; <Lgl;L mYtyf jiyth;fis Vkhw;wp
muRf;F ,Hg;gpid Vw;gLj;jpa[s;shh;.
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;-2
,th; mYtyf kiythpd; Miz Vjkpd;wp nfhak;gj [ ;J}h;
jkpH;ehL ntshz;ik gyfiyf;fHf caphpay; vhpbghUs;
rpwg;g[ ikaj;jpw;F nehpy; brd;W 13.08.2007 md;W 250 fpnyh fhl;lhkzf;F tpijfisa[k; 28.09.2007 md;W 2250 fpnyh fhl;lhkzf;F tpijfisa[k; bgw;W te;J KiwnfL bra;Js;shh;. Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;-3 ,th; 14.10.2008 md;W njhl;lf;fiy Jiwapy;
gzpahw;wp te;j epiyapy; ,th; mYtyf jiythpd; Mizapd;wp nfhak;g[jJ ; }h; jkpH;ehL ntshz;ik gy;fiyf;fHf caphpay; vhpbghUs; rpwg;g[ ikaj;jpy; U:>10>00>000/-f;fhd khdpa fhnrhiyfis Kiwnflhf bgw;W jpU.I.n$hrg; ernud; gpnuk;> ntshz;ik mYtyh; kw;Wk; jpU.rh.Rg;gpukzpad;> ntshz;ik mYtyh;
MfpnahUld; ,ize;J ifahly; bra;Js;shh;.
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;-4 ,th; jkpH;ehL muRg; gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973- d; tpjp 20-I kPwp ele;J bfhz;Ls;sjw;F KG bghWg;ghfpwhh;.”
15.Annexure-2 to the charge memo provides statement of allegations and Annexure-3 stipulates the list of documents relied upon. Thus, there is no infirmity as such with reference to the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner. This apart, the allegations stated in http://www.judis.nic.in 11/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 the impugned charge memo pertain to implementation of the scheme, namely, Jatropha Development Scheme, which is under the absolute control of the Director of Agriculture/second respondent. Thus, the second respondent would be the appropriate person to conduct enquiry proceedings as the scheme itself was implemented by the second respondent. This apart, with regard to the misappropriation to the tune of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/-, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department also commenced enquiry and is in progress. The criminal case was registered in Crime No.3 of 2012, under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 and under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC. However, pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Simultaneous proceedings are certainly permissible and only on exceptional circumstances, wherein it is not possible to continue the departmental proceedings, the same may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case. In the present case, the allegations are relating to a scheme implemented by the second respondent. Thus, all the records and documents are available for the second respondent and therefore, there is no impediment for the authorities competent to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, conclude the same http://www.judis.nic.in 12/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law.
16.Government servants play a significant role in running the administration of our great Nation. They are important constituents of the administrative setup of the Nation. They are pillars of the Government Departments on whose shoulders the responsibility to implement the Government policies lies. They provide public services to the citizens at the grass root level and in the same way, they forward grievances of the public, their representations and demands to the higher for their effective resolution. The Government employees have different work culture and responsibilities as compared to the counterparts in private sector. They are smartly played and they have some kind of perquisites given to them, but at the same time, they have heavy responsibilities to the Government in particular and public in general.
17.However, when the Government servants deviate from the established Rule of Conduct, departmental disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. It is the need of the our to analyze whether conducting departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal http://www.judis.nic.in 13/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 proceedings would amount to double jeopardy or such simultaneous proceedings are to be continued simultaneously. The Departmental Authorities are free to exercise such lawful powers as on confirmed by them by the departmental proceeding Rules and Regulations.
18.In the case of Sri Bhagwan Ram v. The State of Jharkand, State of Bihar and others(2017), it is well-settled that a domestic enquiry and a criminal trial can proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry. The nature of both the proceedings and the test applied to reach a final conclusion in the matter, are entirely different.
19.In the case of Dr.Bharathi Pandey-Deputy General Manager V. Union of India[Special Civil Application No.15602 of 2013], the Apex Court held that it is clear that the departmental inquiry proceedings in every case need not be stayed till the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are concluded. It may be done in case of grave nature involving complicated questions of facts and law. The advisability and desirability has to be determined considering facts of each case. http://www.judis.nic.in 14/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
20.In the case of Ajith Kumar Das v. Union of India and Others[W.P.(C) NO.4036 of 2017], the Court held that the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guideline as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceeding may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental proceeding and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in a criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public as distinguished from mere private right punishable under criminal law, when trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with the proof of offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the evidence act. Converse in the case of departmental enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct of breach of duty of the delinquent officer who punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statute/rule or law that strict standard of rule or applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded in a settled legal position.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
21.In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India[(2012) 13 SCC 142], the Court held that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced but even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex question of fact and law. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
22.The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G.Vittal Rao[(2012) 1 SCC 442] gave a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words:
(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence http://www.judis.nic.in of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.16/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.
23.In the case of NOIDA Entrepreneur Association v. NOIDA and the others[JT 2001 (2) SC 620], the Court held that the standard of proof and nature of evidence in the departmental inquiry is not the same as in criminal case. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offended owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously http://www.judis.nic.in 17/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 as possible. It is not, therefore desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
24. In the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Versus R.B.Sharma, [AIR 2004 SC 4144], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated observing that both proceedings can be held simultaneously. It held, the purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution is to put a distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of duty. The offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of a public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015
25.In the case of West Bokaro Colliery(Tisco Ltd.) v. Ram Parvesh Singh(2008) 3 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of that since standard of proof required in criminal case are beyond reasonable doubt and what is required in departmental inquiry is only of finding the guilt on the basis of preponderance of probability, there is no bar in continuing both simultaneously.
26. In the case of S.A.Venkatraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954, SC 375 it has been held by the Supreme Court that taking recourse to both, does not amount to double jeopardy.
1. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. And Other (2014) 3 SCC 636. It was held that suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to plagiarize their defence before the criminal court.
2. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and Others (1996) 6 SCC 417 held that In certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable', or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. Therefore, stay http://www.judis.nic.in of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a 19/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 matter of recourse.
3. It is also to note that acquittal in criminal proceedings on the same set of charges, per se, does not entitle the delinquent to claim immunity from disciplinary proceedings, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of C.M.D.U.C.O. vs. P.C.Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571. In the same way, departmental proceedings may be continued even after retirement of the employee. (U.P.S.S.Corp.Ltd. vs. K.S.Tandon, AIR 2008 SC 1235)
27.Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that the procedure for taking disciplinary action against a Government servant is lengthy and detailed one, giving maximum opportunity to the government servant to prove his innocence. A Government employee is expected to perform his duties with utmost diligence, efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The Government procedures are lengthy in order to ensure that the Government employees perform their responsibilities without any pressure or exterior considerations. However, at the same time, it ensures discipline amongst the employees and shows the door to the employees who have become dead wood and do not perform as per expectations of public in general and his department in particular. Disciplinary proceeding are conducted http://www.judis.nic.in 20/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 to ensure that the morale of the employees as a whole is boosted. It ought to be noted that criminal proceedings will last for years and this can lead to loss of evidences and thereby staying departmental disciplinary proceedings from being conducted simultaneously would lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Also, it is pertinent to note the fact that the object of such departmental proceedings is not to penalise but to assist in restoring the morale of Government servants. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the Court has to strike a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other which will not have any adverse impact if is conducted simultaneously.
28.In view of the fact that the competent authority/second respondent is to frame charge memo and continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the fact remains that the writ petitioner is not allowed to retire from service. The procedures, in this regard, for continuing the departmental proceedings are to be followed by the authorities. The point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, thus, fails. The second respondent is the authority competent for framing the http://www.judis.nic.in 21/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 charges and the charge memo is to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Secondly, simultaneous proceedings are also permissible during the pendency of the criminal case as discussed above. There is no impediment for the authority to continue with the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. This being the principle to be followed, the writ petitioner has not established any acceptable legal ground for the purpose of granting the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.
29.The respondents are directed to continue the departmental proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, in view of the fact that the petitioner also reached the age of superannuation. Long pendency of disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice. Undoubtedly, the petitioner filed the writ petition and prolonged the departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents are now directed to expedite the enquiry proceedings and conclude the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
30.With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The parties http://www.judis.nic.in 22/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 to the lis are directed to bear their own costs.
08.12.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sji
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Directorate of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Director,
Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
4.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Collectorate Complex, Korampallam, Tuticorin.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
sji http://www.judis.nic.in 23/24 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 W.P.(MD).No.18207 of 2015 08.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 24/24