Simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, especially in cases involving serious charges of corruption, and the departmental proceedings can continue without prejudicing the defence in the criminal trial.

The petitioner is has been served with a charge under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, dated 2.1.2009 for an allegation of receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/-. He has filed the present writ petition to quash the charges in view of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

2. On 24.9.2004, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and a criminal case was registered against him. It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, the alleged illegal gratification was recovered from the pocket of Mr. Nagarathinam, a Village Assistant who is the accused No. 2 in the above said criminal case. The alleged demand and acceptance is only by the Village Assistant and the petitioner has no connection whatsoever to the said allegation. In order to escape from the clutches of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, the said Village Assistant has falsely implicated the petitioner. Investigation has been completed by the police and the charge sheet has also been filed. The investigation of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case founded on the same set of facts is illegal. As the offence involves question of law, the respondents are awaiting the outcome of the decision in C.C. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. If the petitioner discloses his defence as to how the complainant Mr. P.A. Karuppaiah is aggrieved in the discharge of the petitioner's official duty and how he is having grudge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, the exposure of his defence in the departmental enquiry would certainly affect the criminal case. Therefore, he has sought for a certiorari to quash the departmental proceedings.

3. The Collector, Ramanathapuram, in his counter affidavit has submitted that on 23.9.2004, when the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, Rameshwaram, he had demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one Mr. P.A. Karuppiah to permit him to rear fish in the ponds dug in the poramboke lands enjoyed by him. The Tahsildar, Rameshwaram inspected the said land and instructed the party to come and meet him. When the party met the Tahsildar at his quarters on 18.9.2004, the Tahsildar demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- to permit him to continue fish rearing in the Government land. The said Mr. P.A. Karuppiah again met the Tahsildar in his quarters along with one Mr. Ayyasamy on 22.9.2004. The Tahsildar agreed to reduce the bribe money to Rs. 5,000/- and asked the party to hand over the money to Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant, Rameshwaram who would be visiting the party's house on 24.9.2004 morning. In the meanwhile, Mr. P.A. Karuppiah approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing Ramanathapuram on 23.9.2004 and complained against the Tahsildar about the demand of bribe. A case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 2004 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram and a trap was organised. Two official witnesses were arranged for the trap. About 9.15 hours on 24.9.2004 Mr. S. Nagarethinam, Village Assistant came to the house of the complainant Mr. P.A. Karuppiah and demanded the money. The party handed over the phenolphthalein tainted currency notes of Rs. 3,000/- to Mr.S.Nagarethinam. He was caught red handed in the presence of the official witnesses and was arrested by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. Later on, the Tahsildar Rameshwaram was also arrested for having demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- through the Village Assistant. Pursuant to the same, they were placed under suspension on 25.9.2004 and subsequently they were reinstated in service. The Criminal Case registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption is under trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

4. The respondent