The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of a criminal case does not bar the continuance of departmental disciplinary proceedings, especially in corruption cases.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent not to conduct enquiry until the disposal of case pending before the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act).)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent not to conduct enquiry until the disposal of case pending before the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act).

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was employed as Depot Manager Grade-II in Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The petitioner was placed under suspension from service on 07.01.2016, based on the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.4,500/- from the consumer. The criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Chennai City-I, Detachment Crime No.01/AC/2016/CC1 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The criminal case is pending.

3. The only grievance of the writ petitioner is that simultaneous proceedings are impermissible and the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be continued only after the disposal of the criminal case. Such a proposition mooted out in the present writ petition is untenable in view of the fact that the nature of the criminal case is distinct from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

4. This Court is of an opinion that in the event of availability of materials on record, the competent authorities are at liberty to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings, conclude the same and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.

5. The charge memo has already been issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 11.08.2017. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are certainly serious in nature. Thus, if the respondents are having documents and evidences to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, there is no bar for such continuance and pass final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. In the present case on hand, the Enquiry officer has already been appointed. The Enquiry officer, requested the writ petitioner to appear for enquiry. However, the writ petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition on the ground that simultaneous proceedings are impermissible. Even in case of non-availability of requisite documents, the authority competent has to take a decision to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance. Contrarily, mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be considered as a bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The legal principles in this regard are considered by this Court also on earlier occasions.

7. A mere pendency of a criminal case alone, cannot be a bar for proceeding with the departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required before the Criminal Court, is high in nature and even preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

8. Thus, the writ petition filed, in order to keep in abeyance the departmental disciplinary proceedings are entirely different. The allegations against the writ petitioner is in relation to the demand of bribe and by citing the pendency of the criminal case, the writ petitioner shall not be allowed to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings.

9. The cases of Corruption have to be viewed certainly serious and no leniency can be shown. The Honourable Supreme Court also, time and again, emphasized that the charges cannot be quashed on the ground of delay or on technical grounds when the charges are relating to demand of bribe or corruption. This being the consistent view of the Courts, the writ petitioner shall not be allowed to escape from the disciplinary