The court clarified that referral of corruption cases to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal is not mandatory, considering the discretion provided under relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

C. SARAVANAN, J.

1. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.24071 of 2021.

2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner for the following relief:-

“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the charge memo issued by the first respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1, dated 19.08.2021 and the consequential order of the first respondent herein passed in his Roc.No.71/2019/V1, dated 12.10.2021 appointing the second respondent herein as Inquiry Officer and quash the same.”

3. By the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2021, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition in W.P. No.24071 of 2021 filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner with the following observations:-

“7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is to be noted that challenge to the charge memo and the disciplinary proceedings, is on the basis of the well settled legal position that the charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules, is not maintainable and such charge(s) had to be framed only by the Tribunal concerned, which is vested with the power in corruption cases.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely and directly covered in favour of the petitioner based on the above extracted orders of this Court. This Court has to necessarily hold that the impugned charge memo is wholly without authority of law and the same is invalid and liable to be quashed.

10. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned charge memo dated 19.08.2021 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.71/2019/V1, and the consequential order appointing the second respondent as Enquiry Officer, in Roc.No.71/2019/V1, dated 12.10.2021, are set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by invoking the correct provision of law, if so advised, as criminal proceedings now initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended, cannot be invoked against the petitioner, more particularly, under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

11. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P is closed.”

4. The Writ Court while passing the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.12.2021 in W.P.No.24071 of 2021 has relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in the following cases:-

1. M. Arumugam and another Vs. The Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Chennai in W.P. Nos. 354 and 357 of 2019 dated 06.08.2021

2. M. Mohamed Khan Vs. The Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Chennai in W.P. No. 516 of 2019 dated 15.07.2021

5. The Appellants, who were the Respondents in the Writ Petition had initiated departmental proceedings against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner based on a complaint given by one T.K. Jagan of Tiruppur District against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner alleging that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, who is a Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Panchayat Union Office, Udumaplet, Tiruppur District had demanded a bribe of Rs.15,000/- for regularization of unapproved house sites.

6. It appears t