JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.)

The Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge setting aside the order of suspension and the charge memo primarily on the ground that the departmental proceedings initiated after 17 years of the alleged occurrence may not be capable of being established due to the passage of time nor would it be rationale, reasonable or just, on the part of the appellants / department to proceed against the respondent / writ petitioner.

2. The Respondent herein was appointed as Sanitary Maistry on

01.06.1970. He was promoted as Junior Assistant on 23.02.1983. While working as Junior Assistant, a trap was laid on 22.01.2004 which led to the registration of a criminal case against him in S.C.No.103/2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the Respondent vide judgment dated 29.08.2008 by sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. Pursuant to the conviction of the criminal Court, the 1st Appellant issued a show cause notice under Rule 17(c)(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "TNCS (D&A) Rules") on 16.09.2008 directing the Respondent to show cause why action should not be taken against him. A reply is stated to have been submitted on 19.09.2008 requesting the authorities to defer action as the sentence in S.C.No.103/2004 was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.693/2008 and the same was pending on the file of this Court. However, based on the conviction by the trial Court, the respondent was dismissed from service on 12.11.2008. He was to retire from service on 31.10.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation, but on 31.10.2009 he was not allowed to retire from service, in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal and the order of dismissal from service.

4. On 09.08.2019, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent herein by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him, on merits. According to the respondent, he was acquitted from all the charges and it was an honourable acquittal. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a representation on 07.11.2019 seeking recall of the order of penalty of dismissal from service. In response to the representation, the authorities concerned passed an order on 01.07.2021 withdrawing the dismissal order dated 12.11.2008. However, simultaneously, on the same day (01.07.2021) the respondent was placed under deemed suspension retrospectively invoking Rule 17(e)(4) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules. Subsequently on 01.09.2021, a charge memorandum was issued against the respondent for the same trap proceedings, which had ended in acquittal by the judgment of this Court.

5. Challenging the order of suspension dated 01.07.2021 as well as the charge memo dated 01.09.2021, the respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.No.20622 of 2021 before this Court, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. By order dated 24.01.2022, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge. It was found that there was no foundation at all for the prosecution to sustain its case. The learned Judge had also commented adversely on the failure of the prosecution to bring a cogent case against the respondent and held that the entire action is suspicious and shrouded with doubts. The following observations were made by the learned Judge, after referring to the judgment passed in the criminal appeal by this Court:

"16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, in the Criminal Appeal has completely exonerated the petitioner of the charges. In fact, this Court has made a strong observation questioning the very foundation of the prosecution case with reference to the allegation against the petitioner. That being the case, proceeding against the