SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1794

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
The District Revenue Officer, Erode District - Appellant
Versus
R.Palanisamy & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9341 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.10918 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.2481 of 2005
Decided On : 24 November 2005

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:E. Sampathkumar, Govt. Advocate. For the Respondent:R1 P. Rajendran, Advocate.

Department not permitted to proceed with departmental proceedings after 24 years of alleged incident.

Headnote:Service Law - Departmental proceeding-Service Law Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 17(b) - Acquittal in criminal case - Facts and evidence in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are identical -However, Department not permitted to proceed with departmental proceedings after 24 years of alleged incident.

       

Judgment :-

(Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to orders dated 24-07-2003 made in O.A.No. 3211 of 1995 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal/2nd Respondent herein and quash the same.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 24-7-2003 made in O.A.No. 3211 of 1995, directing the Department to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the decision in Criminal Court, the District Revenue Officer, Erode has filed the above Writ Petition.

2. A criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent herein, namely, R. Palanisamy, an Assistant of Erode District Revenue Unit for irregularities of misappropriating Government money to the tune of Rs.96,206.41. The criminal case instituted in the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai in C.C.No.110/90 ended in acquittal of the individual from the criminal charges levelled against him on 13-7-99. The departmental disciplinary proceedings was initially stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an interim order in O.A.No.3211/95 dated 4-7-95 and the Tribunal finally heard the case and issued direction in its order dated 24-7-2003 to take action in consonance with the judgment of the criminal case. Being aggrieved of the said direction, the District Revenue Officer has filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for petitioner and Mr. P. Rajendran, learned counsel for first respondent.

4. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Tribunal is justified in issuing direction to the Revenue Administration to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the decision in Criminal Court?

5. The first respondent herein while working as Revenue Inspector, Kanjikoil Firka in Perundurai Taluk of Erode District during the period from 6-8-81 to 29-9-82, he was charged that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.96,206.41 during the said period. A criminal case was registered against him in Crime No. 589/82 under Sections 420, 409 and 477-A read with Section 109 I.P.C. and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.110/90 of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai. During the pendency of the criminal case, charges were framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and he was dismissed from service as per District Revenue Officer's proceedings dated 6-7-86. Against this order, he preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, and the latter remanded back the matter for fresh disposal for rectification of certain procedural irregularities. The first respondent was placed under suspension again and subsequently fresh charges were framed against him on 10-7-90. By orders of the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5011 of 93 and in view of the fact that the disposal of the criminal case takes longer time, he was allowed to join duty. The grievance of the Revenue administration is that because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the first respondent, the departmental proceedings would not be completed. It is also their claim that even after acquittal by the criminal court, they are free to proceed with the departmental enquiry. Learned Government Advocate basing reliance on Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4986, would contend that acquittal by criminal court will not preclude the department from holding departmental proceedings. In the impugned order, it is true that the Tribunal has directed the department to proceed based on the result of the criminal case. In other words, as per the direction of the Tribunal, if the criminal case ended in acquittal, the department is barred from proceeding further or else they are free to proceed with the departmental enquiry. It is s



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top