The standard of proof and procedures for disciplinary and criminal proceedings are distinct, and disciplinary proceedings should not be prolonged to evade accountability.

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings in SRO/Admn/029394 dated 07.09.2017 u/r 14 of CCS Rules initiated against the petitioner till the conclusion of the criminal case in Cr. No. 320 of 2013 on the file of Royapuram PS, Chennai on account of similar charges and allegations made in both proceedings.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that, the writ petitioner entered into the service of the respondent as Helper during the year 1984 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Senior Helper in the year 1990. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was further promoted to the post of Attendant during the year 2000. On account of certain allegations, a criminal case has been registered against the writ petitioner in Crime Number 320 of 2013, on the file of Royapuram P.S. Chennai for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the criminal case, the writ petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, released on bail after 21 days. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension in proceeding dated 21.03.2013, by the respondent under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that, simultaneous proceedings are impermissible, in view of the fact that, the allegations both in the criminal case as well as in the departmental disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. Thus, the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be kept in abeyance. Based on the said ground, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:-

"ARTICLE-I

That the said Shri P. Lokesh Kumar, while working as Attendant in BNBO was arrested by Chennai Police on 18th March 2013, after an FIR was filed against him for the alleged offences of cheating the public by luring them with Job in Bureau of Indian standards and receive huge sum of money totally Rs. 60 lakhs whereby the aggrieved persons lodged complaint before police and accordingly was imprisoned and confined to Jail for 21 days. The case is now pending on the file of Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8.

By having actively involved in the above-said act Shri P. Lokesh Kumar has failed to maintain the absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant, which is in violation of Rule 3 (1) (i) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct), Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-II

That the said Shri P. Lokesh Kumar was placed under suspension on 21.03.2013. While under suspension he did not comply with the specific condition that he shall always stay at the HQ at Bangalore and whereas it is found that in the Petition filed by him before Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 82 of 2015 he has shown his address as “No. 05/3, Neithal Street MGR Nagar, Chennai-78.” Further, Shri P. Lokesh Kumar in his letter dated 05.09.2015, addressed to Deputy Director General South wherein he sought for modification of clauses and phrases in the Affidavit which he was directed to furnish had clearly mentioned his address as “No. 05/3, Neithal Street, MGR Nagar, Chennai-78.” Thus it is demonstrable by his own admission that he never stays at HQ i.e. Bangalore and is staying only at Chennai all along.

By the above-said act Shri P. Lokesh Kumar who has violated the condition imposed on him to stay at Head quarters(Bangalore) while suspending him from service, failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant, which is in violation of Rule 3 (1) (i) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct), Rules, 1964."

5. Annexure-II provides statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Articles of charges framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III to the charge memo also provides statement of imputation of misconduct. Annexure-IV enumerates the list of documents relie