Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
C. Govindan
Versus
The Joint Director of Agriculture, Dharmapuri & Others
W.P. Nos. 27100 & 27101 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1, 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 02-07-2014
Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules - Rule 17(c) – Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 379 - Restitution of conjugal rights – Divorce – Quash of order - It is an unusual case wherein petitioner being father-in-law is facing prosecution along with his wife and daughter at hands of his son-in-law in relation to alleged incidents that arose out of matrimonial dispute between his daughter and his son-in-law - Petitioner was a Driver in Agriculture Department while his son-in-law is a practicing Advocate in Dharmapuri courts - Marriage of his daughter took place with an Advocate - Two children born out of marriage – However matrimonial life was in trouble - Daughter of petitioner filed a M.O.P. before Sub Court for restitution of conjugal rights - It was ordered - But order did not bring parties together - Son-in-law of petitioner filed for divorce and same is pending – Held, In Court view order revoking punishment order that too based on telephonic instructions of fourth respondent is bad and illegal - In fact Department is not justified in relying on these type of cases to proceed against petitioner as same has nothing to do with his conditions of service and it is purely a matrimonial dispute of his daughter - At most they could wait for outcome of criminal case but department did not do so - On other hand they proceeded departmentally and imposed punishment - Thereafter there is no question of revoking punishment order - Punishment order is not questioned by petitioner - Disciplinary proceeding already came to an end - Punishment order cannot be revoked so as to keep petitioner under suspension on eve of his retirement on ground that disciplinary proceeding is pending - Order is liable to be quashed - Since disciplinary proceeding relating to alleged incident that took place came to be finalized by way of imposition of some punishment department can have no right to take any action based on criminal proceeding relating to same incident in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court reported - Reliance placed on pendency of criminal proceeding is bad and illegal - Department did not choose to place petitioner under suspension when investigation was pending in Crime and later criminal trial was pending while he was in service - This implies that department was of opinion that no public interest required to place him under suspension - If it is so there is absolutely no reason to place petitioner under suspension on eve of his retirement - Writ Petitions are allowed
1. Heard both sides.
2. It is an unusual case, wherein, the petitioner, being the father-in-law, is facing the prosecution along with his wife and daughter, at the hands of his son-in-law in relation to the alleged incidents that arose out of the matrimonial dispute between his daughter and his son-in-law. The petitioner was a Driver in Agriculture Department, while his son-in-law is a practicing Advocate in Dharmapuri courts.
3. The marriage of his daughter took place with an Advocate by name Muniraj on 14.09.2005.
Two children born out of the marriage. However, the matrimonial life was in trouble. The daughter of the petitioner filed a M.O.P. before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was ordered. But the order did not bring the parties together. The son-in-law of the petitioner filed M.O.P.No.5 of 2009 for divorce and the same is pending.
4. Two criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. One is relating to the alleged incident that took place on 02.03.2009 inside the Court Campus, Dharmapuri, when the son-in-law of the petitioner came out of the court premises, after attending the divorce case. The other incident allegedly took place on 26.03.2010, while the son-in-law of the petitioner was returning from the court premises to his house, after attending the divorce case.
5. The son-in-law gave a complaint on 03.03.2009 on the file of Dharmapuri B1 Police Station relating to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009 and the First Information Report was registered in Crime No.489 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 379 IPC. The curious allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioner often demanded money from the son-in-law through his daughter and also directed the son-in-law not to demand a sum of Rs.10,000/- paid to him by the son-in-law before the marriage. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner snatched the gold chain and bracelet of the complainant - Advocate. It was further alleged that the petitioner attempted to assault the complainant with a knife, but the heroic son-in-law prevented the same and escaped with some minor injuries.
6. The relevant portion of the First Information Report in Crime No.489 of 2009 is extracted hereunder :
“TAMIL“
7. After registering the First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. He came out on bail only on 09.03.2009. The trial in the said case is pending in C.C.No.272 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri. Since he was remained in custody for more than 48 hours, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he was placed under suspension by the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the third respondent.
8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9710 of 2009 to quash the aforesaid order of suspension dated 24.04.2009. The writ petition was dismissed on 30.04.2010.
9. The petitioner preferred W.A.No.99 of 2012 and the First Bench of this Court allowed the W.A.No.99 of 2012 on 07.06.2012 and revoked the order of suspension. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent issued the order, dated 06.07.2012 reinstating the petitioner into service.
10. Simultaneously, the Department initiated departmental proceedings by issuing the charge memo dated 20.10.2011, under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules on the alleged incident took place on 02.03.2009, for which, a criminal proceeding is pending, as stated above.
11. The disciplinary proceeding ended in the punishment order dated 11.06.2013 and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of three months.
12. Since the Department decided to take departmental action in relation to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009, the pendency of criminal case relating to the said incident has no consequence, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.NA
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
