ORDER

The charge memorandum issued to the writ petitioner under Rule

3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in proceedings dated 04.10.2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as Sub-Inspector of Police on

16.09.2004 and regarding the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe, a Criminal Case was registered against him by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment, Krishnagiri District in Crime No.04/AC/2011 under Section 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the charge sheet has been already filed before the competent Criminal Court of law and the Criminal Case is yet to be disposed of. While so, the departmental disciplinary proceedings was initiated under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, against the writ petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that the allegations set out in the departmental disciplinary proceedings and the documents and evidences relied on are one and the same with reference to the Criminal Case registered against the writ petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the Criminal Case, which is now pending before the competent Court of law.

5.In view of the complex nature of issues raising doubt in the minds of the disciplinary authority, this Court is inclined to summarize the following principles, which are all to be followed in the cases of simultaneous proceedings (i.e., departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases).

(a) It is a settled law that criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated simultaneously as the case may be;

(b) an order of suspension, if required, may be issued in the prescribed format as per the rules;

(c)if the records and evidences are available with the disciplinary authority, then without any loss of time, charge memorandum shall be issued and the disciplinary proceedings may go on;

(d)The question to be considered is whether simultaneous proceedings may go on or not?;

(e)The departmental domestic enquiry and the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry;

(f) The nature of both proceedings and the test applied to reach final conclusion in the matter are entirely different.

(g)If the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in possession of the required materials for the purpose of conducting enquiry, then administrative decision may be taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case. However, the advisability and desirability has to be determined considering the facts of each case by the authority concerned. Therefore, it would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.

(h)There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.

(i) Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with service rules and regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules.

(j) In the criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand penalty can be imposed on the d