The pendency of criminal proceedings does not necessarily defer a departmental enquiry, and a government servant has the right to engage a lawyer for assistance in a disciplinary enquiry.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of such writ calling for the records of the proceeding of the 2nd respondent in letter No.Sekuva/PaMaNee/Vee Ku2/1439/2018 dated 16.08.2019 and proceeding of the 3rd respondent in Ka.No.SeKuVa/Se.Po/ Mo.Po.Kattu - VII/enquiry/1439/11/2019 dated 20.11.2019 and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to defer the oral enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case pending before the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in CC.7/2011 and further direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to engage a lawyer to conduct the oral enquiry in charge memo No.CMWSSB/P&A/VC2 / 1439/2018 dated 14.06.2019.)

Heard both sides and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Electrical Pumps Man in the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 30.04.1991 (C - Grade Employee). Alleging that he along with one Ranjan -Junior Engineer and Ramamoorthy - Contractor have demanded and received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe amount on 09.07.2009 from one Praballa Kumar of Kodambakkam, Chennai, subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail after three days. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.07.2009 and a criminal case was registered against him. On 06.11.2011, charge sheet in the aforesaid criminal case was filed in CC.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Chennai in CC.No. 7 of 2011, wherein the petitioner alone was cited as accused and the other co-accused/arrested persons were shown as witnesses.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after lapse of 10years, the first respondent herein had issued charge memo in Charge Memo No.CMWSSB/P&A/V/C2/1439 dated 14.06.2019 under 10(2) of CMWSSB Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1978. For which, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent to defer the enquiry till the disposal of criminal case stating that the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed in the criminal case are one and the same. The petitioner further requested the first respondent to permit him to engage a lawyer to conduct the oral enquiry. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent vide his proceedings dated 16.08.2009, stating that with regard to engagement of lawyer, it will be decided by the 3rd respondent/Enquiry Officer. In turn, on 20.11.2019, the 3rd respondent/Enquiry Officer rejected the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer and posted the enquiry on 19.12.2019 and 20.12.2019, with a direction to Vigilance Inspector to be present during enquiry. On 17.12.2019 another memo was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the enquiry was posted on 23.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 based on the request of the Vigilance Inspector. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.08.2019 and the order of the 3rd respondent dated 20.11.2019.

4. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed.

5. The case of the respondents is that on 09.07.2009 the petitioner went to the house of the complaint and received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards legal fees to provide new Metro water and Sewerage Connection. After getting pre-planned signal from the complainant, the petitioner was caught red handed and the total amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered and Phenolphthalein tests were conducted at both the hands and the right hand side pant pocket of the petitioner were turned positive. Further, on search at the premises of Depot No.120, a sum of Rs.38,000/- was found outside the building window. Thereafte