O R D E R

The order of suspension issued by the respondent dated 16.03.2015, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner states that he was working as Village Assistant in Krishnagiri District and was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

3. The allegation against the writ petitioner is that while he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Sonarahalli Village in Kochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Krishnagiri on 16.03.2015 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- for issuing the legal heir certificate. The petitioner was caught red-handed, while receiving the said sum of Rs.1,000/- from one Mr.D.Gnanavel, by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and remanded at Sub Jail at Hosur.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that the criminal case registered against the writ petitioner is pending.

5. Pertinently, it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent that the petitioner has not even completed the period of probation. Therefore, he is not a fully qualified member of the services.

6. As far as the probationers are concerned, if a criminal case has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Competent Authorities are empowered to initiate action to terminate the period of probation. The rules and the procedures contemplated, in this regard, are to be followed.

7. Contrarily, keeping the probationer under suspension for a prolonged period and paying the subsistence allowance would cause great financial loss to the State Exchequer. Even during the probation period, the employees involving in corrupt activities are to be dealt in accordance with the procedures contemplated under the Service Rules. Contrarily, in the present case, the petitioner is placed under suspension for a prolonged period.

8. The disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings is permitted in law. Pendency of the criminal case is not bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings and dispose of the same. There is no impediment for the disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the respondent is bound to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

9. Regarding simultaneous proceedings, this Court has passed an elaborate order in W.P.(MD) No.14356 of 2019 dated 08.02.2022 and the relevant paragraphs-5 to 8 are extracted here under:

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).

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

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

(iii) 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;

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

(v) 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;

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

(vii) If the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in posses