JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent dated 10.07.2017 made in Memo No.1634/021134/V.P.771/Adm.I/A.4/F.C.F 8(b)/15-1 and to quash the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.07.2017 and consequently, direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner during the period of suspension from 22.08.2006 to 28.03.2017 and direct the Board to consider the case of the petitioner and to promote the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer-Electrical, on par with his immediate juniors.)

1. The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing on 28.07.2021.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. Alleging involvement in a criminal case initiated by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent Corporation, was placed under suspension on 22.08.2006. The criminal case registered as a Special Case No.8 of 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, was concluded on 11.04.2016, whereby the petitioner was found ‘not guilty’ of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) and thereby acquitted. Through the impugned charge memo dated 10.07.2017, the respondent Corporation had levelled charges touching upon the same incident leading to the criminal case in Special Case No.8 of 2007, which is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, he would submit that the departmental action for a similar set of charges, for which the petitioner was earlier tried before the Criminal Court and acquitted, is impermissible, for which purpose he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2006 (5) SCC 446. Secondly, he would submit that the impugned charge memo initiated in the year 2017, for an occurrence that took place in 2006, is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. For such a proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Bhoopathy Vs. Union of India rep. by Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Chennai City North Division, Chennai and another reported in 2015 (3) LW 27.

4. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of P.Siva Shanmugam V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Chennai and another passed in W.P.No.14173 of 2013 dated 26.06.2018, which judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.2710 of 2018 dated 16.07.2019, as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in P.Shankar V. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Chennai & Others in W.A.No.2346 of 2019 dated 16.04.2021.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Corporation placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings operate on different fields and there is no bar for initiation of departmental proceedings even when an employee is acquitted from the criminal charges. In support of such a proposition, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association V. Noida and Others reported in 2007 (5) AIC 37.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

7. The facts of the case narrated above is not disputed on either side. For an occurrence that took place on 22.08.2006, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case for offences under the provisions of PC Act and placed under suspension on the same day.