WA/3086/2023 of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs E.RANGACHARI on 1 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Two intra-court appeals have been instituted by the State challenging the common writ order dated 31.10.2022.

2. Respondent was holding the post of Sub-Registrar in Registration Department and he had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and trapped by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. A criminal case was registered against him in SC.No.58 of 2000. Departmental disciplinary proceedings are initiated and a charge memorandum dated 26.05.2004 was issued.

3. Since the criminal trial was pending, department was not in a position to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The criminal case ended with an order of acquittal on 03.10.2013. During the pendency of the criminal trial, respondent filed two writ petitions, one challenging charge memo and another challenging the order of suspension and not allowing him to retire from service on the date of superannuation i.e., 31.05.2010. Both the writ petitions are allowed, on the ground of delay in concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, State preferred the appeal.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader would mainly contend that the delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be attributed to the department, since a criminal trial was pending during the relevant point of time when the charge memo under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued. Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 03.10.2013 and an appeal was filed by the prosecution. The criminal appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 28.04.2022 during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the department was not in a position to conclude the departmental disciplinary proceedings on account of want of documents or due to other reasons. Though the enquiry officer was appointed, he was not in a position to conclude the proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial and the criminal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that there was an enormous delay in filing the charges under Rule 17b. 7 years delay was considered by the Writ Court for allowing the writ petitions. Respondent was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. Now, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal, and the criminal appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. Thus, the writ order impugned is to be sustained.

6. This Court has considered the rival summations made between the parties to the lis on hand.

7. Respondent had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and was trapped by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. During the pendency of the criminal trial, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and kept in abeyance. Under these circumstances, whether the delay in concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings can be attributed against the department or not is to be considered by this Court. The Government issued guidelines.

8. No doubt, pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings and to conclude the same. Though the documents and evidences in the criminal case and departmental proceedings are one and the same, there is no impediment for the disciplinary authority to independently conduct the departmental disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment, if the charges framed against the delinquent officer are proved. Mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be a ground to seek exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings by the employee. Even in case of an acquittal, the department is empowered to impose punishment under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. However, if the department is of the opinion that they are not in a position to conclude the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case, they are empowered to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, keeping the departmental proceedings pending during the criminal trial, per se would not be a ground to quash the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The department, in certain circumstances may not be in a position to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. On some occasions, the delinquent officers themselves are submitting representations not to proceed with the departmental proceedings. Under these circumstances, when the departmental proceedings are pending for a long time, the pendency of the criminal case and its disposal is also to be taken into consideration by the Courts while dealing with the ground of delay raised for quashing the departmental disciplinary proceedings. If the delay in completion of departmental disciplinary proceedings is unintentional and due to the reason that the criminal case was pending, then such delay cannot be held against the department.

9. In the present case, the allegation against the respondent was demand and acceptance of bribe, and he was trapped by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Criminal case registered in the year 2000 ended with an order of acquittal on 03.10.2013. Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 28.04.2022.The charge memorandum issued in the year 2004 was kept pending, though an enquiry officer was appointed. The respondent also has not made any request for disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the relevant point of time. Contrarily, he directly filed a writ petition in the year 2014 to quash the charge memo merely on the ground of delay. Thus, ground of delay held against the department is not in consonance with the established legal position. In such circumstances, the delay cannot be held against the department, since the criminal case was pending and the departmental proceedings were kept in abeyance. There was no intention on the part of the department to delay the departmental proceedings. Thus, the quashment of charge memo is not desirable.

10. The order of suspension and the consequential extension of service has been passed on account of the pendency of the departmental proceedings and the criminal case. Therefore, the said order is also to be sustained, till such time the departmental disciplinary proceedings are concluded. However, in the present case, the department has already passed an order allowing the respondent to retire from service without prejudice to the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated. The departmental disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Thus, the department is at liberty to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and rules in force.

11. With these observations, the common writ order impugned in WP.No.21785 of 2014 and WP.No.21786 of 2014 dated 31.10.2022 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 01-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA Nos. 3086 & 3089 of 2023 01-09-2026