The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee for submitting representation against the enquiry report and the limitations on the exercise of suo motu power by the Appellate Authority.

1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.9412 of 2000, challenging the order of removal from service. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.32056 of 2005.

2. The petitioner, M.Rajendran, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer in Uthamanoor Village, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, was trapped and arrested on 29.08.89 at 8.30 hrs. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, on the ground that he demanded and accepted Rs.50/- as bribe from Santhiagu S/o Soosai, Kodimangalam Village, for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 of Kundukulam Village. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a criminal case against him and charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivaganga. But, the said criminal case was ended in acquittal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings were initiated against him.

The disciplinary authority, after receiving the enquiry officers report, imposed with a punishment of censure, in his proceedings dated 15.03.96. Since the said order of punishment of censure was imposed without the presence of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and without the investigating officer, the Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration having seen that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated, set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded to Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the technical irregularities had crept in. Again, fresh charges were framed against the delinquent officer and thereafter, the enquiry officers report was received. But the report of the enquiry officer did not find him guilty. On that basis, the disciplinary authority/Revenue Divisional Officer sought for concurrence of the Government to drop further proceedings in this case. Again, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, in his letter No.Rc.Services (V) (3)47082/97, dated 03.04.2000, by observing that the enquiry officer has not conducted the proper enquiry by following the procedure laid down in Rule 109 of Vigilance Manual and Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, directed to conduct further enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner again submitted his detailed explanations.

The enquiry officer/Special Tahsildar (DRS) Manamadurai, after conducting the enquiry in the presence of investigating officer, submitted his report dated 09.11.2000. Since the enquiry officer found him guilty, the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service by order dated 27.11.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the Original Application on the file of the Tribunal, challenging the order of removal from service. The Tribunal, while entertaining the Original Application, passed an interim order of stay against the order of removal from service. In view of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still continuing in service as of today.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for an allegation of illegal demand and acceptance of Rs.50/-as bribe from Santhiagu, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the criminal case filed against the petitioner, by giving a categorical finding in favour of the petitioner that it was doubtful for the money being received as illegal gratification. Therefore, when the facts and evidence in the criminal proceedings were already dismissed, on the same set of charges and evidences, the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against him. As the charges are one and the same both in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings and in v