IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must be timely and based on adequate evidence; undue delay can infringe on the right to a fair hearing.

ORDER :

(R.N. Manjula, J.) :

(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in R.O.C.No.A1/83/2023 (TDP.04/2023) dated 27.09.2023, quash the same.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 27.09.2023 issued by the fourth respondent against the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Ms.Devasena, learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. When the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer, on 02.11.2018, on a surprise inspection, some gold, silver materials and cash were recovered from the petitioner. However, after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was not found guilty and the other delinquent, namely Balagurunathan, was found guilty for the same. Despite the same, a case in Crime No.7 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 came to be registered on the very same set of allegations on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station, Madurai.

4. In view of the above pending criminal case against the petitioner, the petitioner was not considered to his next level promotion as Superintending Engineer. Hence, he filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.10219 of 2021 before this Court seeking to promote him as City Engineer. This Court by order dated 04.08.2022 directed the officials to consider the petitioner for promotion as City Engineer. In the meanwhile, the post of City Engineer was re-designated as Superintendent Engineer. Accordingly, the petitioner was given with the promotion as Superintending Engineer and he was working as such since the date of his promotion. While the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings in R.O.C.No.A1/83/2023 dated 27.02.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the enquiry that was conducted earlier, the petitioner was not found guilty and the same was closed. Subsequently, on the same set of allegations, an FIR came to be registered. A charge memo also was issued on the very same allegations.

6. The Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, after registering the criminal case has not chosen to file the charge sheet against the petitioner. Instead, it recommended for departmental action. Consequent to the said recommendation, the present charge memo came to be issued, but with a huge delay.

7. It is further submitted that the foundational materials i.e., Report of the Investigation Agency and consequential recommendation to the Government, were not furnished to the petitioner to make his effective defence on the allegations made against him. In fact, the petitioner had made an application seeking such materials under RTI. However, the said materials were not furnished to the petitioner citing the pendency of the proceedings before the Vigilance and Anticorruption.

8. It is the core contention of the petitioner that when the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondent without making any steps to file charge sheet before the criminal Court, had recommended for departmental action only in order to deny further promotion to the petitioner.

9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the following judgments:

1. State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772;

2. M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others [(2006) 5 SCC 88];

3. Union of India vs. K.D.Pandey and another [(2002) 10 SCC 471]; and

4. State of Punjab and others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570]

10. The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that t