Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings, and delay in disciplinary proceedings cannot be solely attributed to the respondents if it is due to the petitioner's own actions.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order of suspension passed by the 3rd respondent in RO No.46/2006 in C.No.B2/792/2006 dated 29.01.2006 and the 4th respondent in DO No.42/2006 in C.No.D3/28713/1998 dated 29.01.2006 and the consequential order of not permitting the petitioner to retire from service issued by the 4th respondent in DO No.46/2006 in C.No.D3/28713/1998 dated 30.01.2006 and the 3rd respondent in RO.47/2006 and C.No.B2/792/2006 dated 30.01.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued to him in PR No.60/2018 U/r 3(b) dated 11.05.2018 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.24536 of 2017, challenging the order of suspension issued on the eve of his retirement and the consequential orders passed by the respondents, not permitting the petitioner to retire from service.

2. Another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.16727 of 2018, challenging the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 [in short, -TNPSS (D&A) Rules-] in proceedings dated 11.05.2018.

3. The petitioner was recruited as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.02.1971. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1979 and as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1996. The petitioner and his brother Mr.Rajendran were the members of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family.

4. Due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner and his brother, dispute aroused regarding partition of the properties and criminal cases were registered against both of them. Civil cases were also instituted. Seven Criminal Cases were registered against the writ petitioner in Virudhachalam Police Station at the instigation of his brother Mr.Rajendran.

5. On 20.07.1998, the petitioner was placed under suspension. During the pendency of the criminal cases, the respondents issued a charge memorandum in proceedings dated 27.11.1998 under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS (D&A) Rules. The disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment of postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Director General of Police initiated suo motu review proceedings and issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner, stating that the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner is inadequate and accordingly, asked the petitioner to submit his explanations, why the punishment should not be enhanced.

6. The petitioner filed O.A.No.791 of 2000, challenging the order of suspension, which was set aside and he was reinstated in service. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.01.2006 and again, he was suspended on the eve of his retirement and not allowed to retire from service.

7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the present charge memo was issued after a lapse of several years and the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in the year 2006 and almost 12 years lapsed. Therefore, the charge memo is untenable and liable to be set aside on the ground of delay and based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403. It is contended t