The main legal point established is that departmental proceedings and the criminal case can proceed simultaneously, and the nature of the charge in the criminal trial and the stage of the criminal case should be considered to determine the impact on the delinquent's defense.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Appellant is a policeman in Railway Protection Force. On 11.01.2017, he was deputed to escort, Nilagiri Express train from Chennai to Salem alongwith three other staff. He was alleged to have misbehaved and sexually harassed two minor girl children travelling in the same train. Principal of the School, who had travelled in the train alongwith the children gave a complaint to Government Railway Police Station, Salem. Accordingly, a case in Cr.No.6 of 2017 was registered under the Protection of Child From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 for alleged offence under Section 9 (m) (1) and 10 of the said Act. Criminal Case is stated to be under investigation and charge sheet is yet to be filed.

2. Based on the alleged incident reported, appellant was placed under suspension on 12.01.2017. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, a charge memo dated 10.03.2017 has been issued. Order of suspension was revoked on 28.06.2017 and the appellant was transferred from Chennai to Sulurpet in Andhra Pradesh. Charge framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 10.03.2017 under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, has been challenged in W.P.No.25418 of 2017.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, adverting to the facts and circumstances and tracing the history of POCSO Act, 2012 and catena of decisions, writ Court vide order dated 21.09.2017, declined to quash the Charge memorandum dated 10.03.2017. Testing the correctness of the order, instant writ Appeal has been filed.

4. Inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of FIR dated 12.01.2017 and the allegations in the charge memorandum dated 10.03.2017, Mr.V.Stalin, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is variance. Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the order of the writ Court in W.P.No.25418 of 2017 dated 19.07.2017, Mr.V.Stalin, further contended that when the appellant had denied the very allegations made against him, observation of the writ Court, permitting examination of the Principal as well as teachers in the enquiry proceedings and thereafter granting permission to rely on the submissions, in the criminal case, would seriously prejudice the defence of the appellant in the criminal case.

5. Attention of this Court was also drawn to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. Neelam Nag and another, reported in 2016 (9) SCC 491, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the disciplinary proceedings to be kept in abeyance, till the expiry of one year from the date of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for interference.

6. Per contra, taking this Court to the nature of allegations, Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar for conducting departmental proceedings when the criminal case, is at the primitive stage of filing of FIR only. According to him, no charge sheet has been filed and that therefore, the contention of the appellant that his defence would be exposed, is not correct.

7. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in charge memorandum dated 10.03.2017, departmental enquiry had already commenced on 20.03.2017. So far there were nine hearings and that only two witnesses remain to be examined and at this juncture, there is no need to prevent continuation of departmental proceedings. He also submitted that there was an enquiry proceedings on 28.11.2017 in which the appellant participated without any demand.

8. Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that when the appellant had participated in the departmental enquiry proceedings for nearly nine hearings, he has not averred the same in the supporting affidavit to W.P.No.25418 of 2017, filed to quash the same. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is wilful and deliberate sup