WA/1343/2024 of The Inspector General of Police Vs J Durairaj on 21 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 20.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.10046 of 2017. The Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch CID along Superintendent of Police, CBCID has filed the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

2. Respondent herein had instituted writ proceedings to forbear appellants from proceeding with the departmental disciplinary proceedings pending disposal of criminal case registered in C.C.No.4558 of 2013, which was transferred to Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Chennai and renumbered as C.C.No.1705 of 2017.

3. Brief Facts:

i) Respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.01.1999 on compassionate ground. He was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.06.2013 pending criminal prosecution launched in Crime No.2 of 2013 on the file of CBCID, Metro, Chennai. Simultaneously, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short Rules, 1955) issued vide proceedings dated 23.06.2016, framing two charges.

ii) Respondent at that point of time had filed writ petition to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance citing the ground that allegations both in the criminal case and departmental proceedings are one and the same.

iii) Meanwhile, respondent challenged the criminal proceedings. This Court quashed the charge sheet in the criminal case and the appeal preferred by State in SLP Diary No.4778 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay of 1448 days in filing SLP.

iv) In view of quashment of criminal case, Writ Court allowed writ petition by quashing the charge memo dated 23.06.2016 and held that appellants are not empowered to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings any further. Challenging the said order, State preferred the present writ appeal.

4. Contention of Appellants:

i) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for appellants would mainly contend that SLP was dismissed on the ground of delay. Two charges were framed, and second one is independent. First charge is relating to allegations based on the criminal complaint. Department is empowered to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rules, 1955. Quashing of charge sheet in a criminal case is not a bar for Department to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings. Two charges were framed against the respondent and enquiry is at the preliminary stage and not concluded.

ii) Prayer in the writ petition filed by respondent was to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till disposal of criminal case. However, Writ Court had gone to the extent of quashing the charge memo beyond the scope of writ petition and thus, present writ appeal is to be allowed.

5. Contention of Respondent:

i) Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose, by stating that enquiry had been conducted continuously and allegations both in the criminal case as well as in the departmental disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. There is no material available on record to prosecute respondent, when Criminal Court quashed the charge sheet and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. There is no scope to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings and on that ground, Writ Court quashed the charge memo. Since the Apex Court confirmed the order of High Court, quashing criminal charge sheet, there is no reason to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings and thus, the writ appeal is to be rejected.

6. Discussions:

i) Perusal of the charge memo would show that two charges were framed. They are;

Delinquency: (1) “1) You are working in Crime Branch CID, as Junior Assistant, with effect from 07.01.1999. On 27.05.2013, by introducing yourself to Tr.Shahul Hameed, Sakaria Colony, Choolaimedu, Chennai as " I am Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID" and threatened him, "In as much as you have gambled in IPL match fixing, your name has also been incorporated in our Crime Branch CID record and if you desire that your name to be deleted from it, you ought to give Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five Lakh only). Tr.Shahul Hameed preferred a complaint in this regard to Crime Branch CID Office on 30.05.2013, on which a case in CBCID Metro Cr.No.02/2013 u/s 419.384. r/w 511 IPC was registered on 01.06.2013 against you. After conducting a detailed enquiry, you were arrested on 06.06.2013 and sent to judicial custody. By misusing your official capacity, extorting lumpsum amount by threatening, it manifests your indiscipline in service, violation of the Conduct Rules and dereliction of duty. Hence in accordance with the orders of the Head of the Office of the Crime Branch CID in C.No.F3/008867/2013, D.O.No.2445/2013, you have placed under suspension. Charge is that dereliction of duty and violation of the Conduct Rules". Delinquency: (2) "When you were serving as Junior Assistant in Crime Branch CID, by introducing yourself as Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police indulging in the offence of Kangaroo Court such as vacating houses and shops, you have defamed the Police department is an offence".

ii) Annexure-II of charge memo provides details of allegations, namely, imputation of misconduct or misbehavior. Annexure- III provides list of documents relied upon by Department to prove charges. 16 documents were relied upon. Annexure-IV denotes list of witnesses to be examined and 10 witnesses were named and thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of charge memorandum issued under Rules 17(b) of Rules, 1955.

iii) Question to be decided is whether quashment of criminal case would be a bar for Department to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant. Legal position has been settled. Governing principles are;

a) procedures to be followed in criminal case and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different;

b) strict proof is required to convict a person in criminal case, but, no such strict evidence is required to punish a Government employee under Discipline & Appeal Rules;

c) acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to seek exoneration from Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings;

d) preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Conduct Rules;

iv) Departmental disciplinary proceedings are not dependent on the criminal case and even for moral turpitude, departmental proceedings may be initiated. Unbecoming of a Government servant by itself is a misconduct contemplated under Government Servants’ Conduct Rules. Therefore, procedures both for departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and different.

v) Quashing criminal proceedings or acquittal in criminal case per se would not constitute a ground to seek exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings. Department is empowered to conduct an independent enquiry in the context of misconduct under Service Rules, conclude enquiry and pass final orders.

vi) In the present case, allegations in the charge memo are grave in nature. Respondent, who was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Crime Branch CID pretended to be an Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID and threatened a person by stating that “in as much as you have gambled in IPC match fixing, your name has also been incorporated in our Crime Branch CID record and if you desire that your name to be deleted from it, you ought to give Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five Lakh only).” Complainant one Shahul preferred a complaint before Crime Branch CID on 30.05.2013, based on which criminal case has been registered.

vii) Pertinently, another charge has been framed, i.e., respondent indulged in the offence of Kangaroo Court, such as vacating houses, shops and defamed Police Department. Second charge appears to be independent to that of 1st charge. Regarding 1st charge, criminal case was registered, High Court quashed the charge sheet and

Supreme Court dismissed the State appeal on the ground of delay. The ground raised by appellants that Writ Court granted excess relief than that of the relief sought for in the writ petition. Pertinently, respondent filed writ petition to keep departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till disposal of criminal case. However, Writ Court, based on the quashment of charge sheet, quashed the departmental disciplinary proceedings and charge memo dated 23.06.2016, by stating that Department is not entitled to proceeding with departmental disciplinary proceedings.

viii) Legal proposition adopted by Writ Court is not in consonance with established principles of departmental disciplinary proceedings. Departmental disciplinary proceedings can go on independently, de hors pendency of criminal case. Even during pendency of criminal case, there is no bar for the Department to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings, if relevant materials are available to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, findings of Writ Court that Department is not empowered to conduct departmental proceedings are running counter to the legal propositions settled on departmental disciplinary proceedings. Department is empowered to conduct enquiry in respect of charges independently, by affording opportunity to delinquent officer and by following the procedures as contemplated under Rules, 1955. and pass final orders.

ix) In view of the above factual and legal position, this Court is able to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that writ Court order is unable to be sustained.

Conclusion:

Consequently, the present Writ Appeal is allowed. Writ Order dated 20.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.10046 of 2017 is set aside. However, due to litigation, matter is pending for quite sometime and therefore, appellants are directed to proceed with departmental disciplinary proceedings by following procedures contemplated, conclude the same and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible. Needless to state that Department shall continue departmental disciplinary proceedings from the place where it has been stopped, conclude the same and pass final orders. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J. AR W.A.No. 1343 of 2024 21-09-2026