The court established that the suspension should be revoked after acquittal, and the subsequent criminal case did not bar revocation and retirement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his letter No. 1131/HL1/2020 – 5, dated 29.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to revoke the petitioner''s suspension order dated 30.03.2015 and permitting him to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2015 with all monetary and attendant benefits.)

The prayer of the Writ Petition is as follows:-

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his letter No.1131/HL1/2020 – 5, dated 29.10.2020 and consequently direct the respondents herein to revoke the petitioner''s suspension order, dated 30.03.2015 and permitting him to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2015 with all monetary and attendant benefits.

2. Heard Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Prakash, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Highways Department on 22.10.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer and was posted in the office of the Highways Department, NABARD, Sattur on 07.10.2000. He was further promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer, National Highways Department at Ramanad on 10.03.2010. Subsequently, he was posted at Madura National Highways Office. While things stood thus, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Madurai, initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner alleging that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income, while he was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural at Sattur and registered a case against him for the offences punishable under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.10 of 2003. The same was taken on file in Special C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, Madurai. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Cases at Madurai and taken on file in Special Case No.56 of 2011 from 19.10.2011 onwards.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner''s date of superannuation fell on 31.03.2015. While so, the first respondent issued proceedings in G.O(3D)No.26, Highways and Minor Ports (HL1) Department, dated 30.03.2015, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to the filing of Special C.C.No.2 of 2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Madurai. Following which, another G.O(3D)No.27, Highways and Minor Ports (HL1) Department, dated 31.03.2015, was also issued, by which the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2015 afternoon, but was retained in service. Thereafter, the petitioner contested the aforesaid criminal proceedings before the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai, in which the petitioner and his wife were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C in Special Case No.56 of 2011 on 31.08.2016. After the pronouncement of the said Judgment, the prosecution did not file any appeal and thus, the Judgment of the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai, dated 31.08.2016 attained its finality. On being acquitted from the criminal case from all the charges levelled by the first respondent against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for revocation of the suspension order, dated 30.03.2015 and also the order dated 31.03.2015 whereby he was not permitted to retire from service has to be revoked. For which, he personally approached the respondents requesting to issue suitable o