Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. Justice N.MALA, J
K.Sampath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman – Respondent
W.P.No.12077 of 2022 and WMP.No. 11513 of 2022
M/s.N.S.Amogh Simha, M/s.David Sundar Singh
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on identical charges post-acquittal in a criminal case, especially when there is significant delay, as it constitutes double jeopardy.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) - Charge memo issued after acquittal in criminal case - Delay of 10 years in issuing charge memo deemed excessive - Court held that identical charges in both proceedings render the departmental action unsustainable post-acquittal. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15)
(B) Double Jeopardy - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings after acquittal in criminal case on identical facts is impermissible - The court emphasized that allowing such proceedings would be unjust and oppressive. (Paras 11.6, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after being acquitted of corruption charges in 2021, faced a charge memo issued in 2022 for the same allegations, 13 years post-incident. The petitioner argued that the charge memo was an abuse of process and sought to quash it.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge memo was issued after an inordinate delay and was based on identical facts as the criminal case, thus quashing it.
Issues: Whether the charge memo is sustainable post-acquittal, whether it is liable to be set aside due to delay, and whether the pendency of the criminal case barred departmental proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the identical nature of charges and the significant delay in issuing the charge memo rendered it unsustainable, emphasizing the principle against double jeopardy.
Result: Writ petition allowed; charge memo quashed.
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to quash the charge memo dated 11.04.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Brief facts :
2.1 The petitioner joined as Helper in 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Telephone Operator, Commercial Assistant, and Commercial Inspector in 2000, 2002, and 2007 respectively. While so, in August 2009, the petitioner was implicated in a trap case for having demanded illegal gratification from one Sasikumar, for providing a three-phase service connection. The petitioner was proceeded against for offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A criminal case was also registered in S.C.C. No. 8/2011, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur. As a consequence of the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended from service in 2009. The petitioner's suspension continued for 10 years, and thereafter, in 2019, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Meanwhile, after a full-fledged trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, by judgment dated 27.09.2021, acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the . According to the petitioner, the judgment by the criminal court attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said judgment. As a consequence of acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner requested the respondent to regularise the period of suspension as duty and to grant other attendant benefits. As the respondent did not accede to the request, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 29.09.2021. Since there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 25120 of 2021 for a mandamus, in which an order was passed, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2.2 The petitioner forwarded a copy of the Court order to the respondents, but the respondent did not act on the same. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent issued a charge memo dated 11.04.2022, indicting the petitioner for demanding and receiving bribe of Rs.3000/- from one Sasikumar, for providing domestic three phase service connection. As the charges framed in the charge memo of the 3rd respondent and the charges framed in the criminal case were identical and as the charge memo was issued with an inordinate delay of 10 years from the date of incident, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all the allegations and contentions raised in the writ petition. According to the respondent the writ petition was premature and the same was liable to be dismissed in limini. The respondents stated that the acquittal in criminal case proceedings was not a bar to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents stated that the competent authority was entitled to initiate departmental proceedings de-hors the acquittal by the Criminal Court.
4. It was further stated that since the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings related to grave misconduct by the petitioner, the respondents were entitled to proceed against him as per the statutory rules and regulations. The respondents further denied that the list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority were the same as in the criminal case. The respondents also denied the allegation that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated solely to harass the petitioner. The respondents hence prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were barred from proceeding against the petitioner departmentally, on the same set of allegations, facts and circumstances that were presented in the criminal case, which ended in the petitioner's acquittal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
