IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26-09-2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.31872 of 2017 And WMP No.35022 of 2017 M.Chinnaraj .. Petitioner vs.

1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Survey Settlement, Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

2.The Assistant Director (I/c), Survey and Land Records, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Tahsildar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the order in Roc.No.1195/2017/D1, dated 13.03.2017 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and thereby direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into his service with effect from 11.03.2017 with all back wages.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Tamil Selvan for Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate.

For Respondent-4 : Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 13.03.2017, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was holding the post of Taluk Sub Inspector of Survey and he was arrested in a trap case in Crime No.5 of 2017/AC/KG under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus the petitioner was placed under suspension.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and not allowed to retire from service and the order of suspension was also extended. However, the petitioner is receiving the subsistence allowance not exceeding the provisional pension.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, brought to the notice of this Court that the criminal case registered against the writ petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is pending and the charge sheet has already been filed.

5. This being the factum, the petitioner has to approach the Competent Authority only after the disposal of the criminal case in Special CC No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the relevant rules in force.

6. It is made clear that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, if they could collect the documents and the relevant records for the purpose of concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings. There is no bar for the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the departmental disciplinary proceedings even during the pendency of the criminal case.

7. 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