Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue if they are based on identical facts leading to acquittal in criminal proceedings, reflecting different standards of proof.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

The issue involved in both these writ petitions is common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. W.P.No.24167 of 2024 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.05.2024 wherein charge memo has been issued against the petitioner to hold an enquiry under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

3. W.P.No.24170 of 2024 has been filed against the impugned Government Order dated 31.07.2024 not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and retaining him in service from 31.07.2024 and for consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service with all consequential and attendant benefits.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Additional Director (Operations and Training) from the year 2020. Based on a complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.2 of 2020 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore for offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation was completed and prima facie materials were collected to show that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income during check period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2010. The final report was taken on file by the Special Court, Coimbatore in Spl. C.C.No.6 of 2023.

5. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the orders passed by the first respondent dated 03.10.2023. The request made by the petitioner for reinstatement was also rejected. A charge memo dated 03.05.2024 came to be issued by framing two charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that the petitioner had movable and immovable properties to the tune of Rs.15,83,793/-, which was disproportionate to the tune of 57% to the known sources of income. The second charge was that the petitioner did not maintain absolute integrity and devotion and hence had contravened Rule 20 of the TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CONDUCT RULES , 1973.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the charge memo has been issued on the same set of facts/identical facts, for which the petitioner was facing criminal proceedings.

7. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2024 before this Court against the order passed by the Special Judge, Coimbatore dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. This criminal revision case came to be allowed by an order dated 10.07.2024. As a consequence, the Special Court, Coimbatore by order dated 07.08.2024 disposed of the criminal case as 'discharged'.

8. The date of superannuation of the petitioner fell on 31.07.2024. In the meantime, G.O.(2D) No.244 Home (Police-XVII) Department dated 31.07.2024 came to be issued and the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service on his reaching the age of superannuation and he was retained in service. It is under these circumstances, the charge memo and the order passed retaining the petitioner in service have been put to challenge in these two writ petitions.

9. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in both the writ petitions.

10. The respondents have taken a stand that the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings by itself will not prevent the respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The respondents after placing reliance upon various judgments of the Supreme Court have taken a stand that the na