BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Sivanesa Selvan ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3.The Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi District, Crime No.113/2025. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner till the conclusion of the criminal case registered as against the petitioner in Crime No.113 of

2025 on the file of 3rd Respondent Police Station.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable at Eral Police Station, Thoothukudi was suspended from service by a proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, dated 07.10.2025, pursuant to a criminal case registered as against him in Crime No.113 of 2025 on the file of Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi, for the offence under Sections 126, 296(b), 131, 109, 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023. Based on the criminal case, the Department has initiated departmental proceedings as against the petitioner and issued a charge memo dated 24.12.2025. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer was also appointed by proceedings dated 22.01.2026. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition that the departmental proceedings initiated against him should not proceed further pending the criminal case in Crime No. 113 of 2025 on the file of Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi.

2. There is no legal bar for simultaneous conduct of departmental and criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, time and again, reiterated that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations as in the criminal case and also permitted the disciplinary authorities to conclude the departmental proceedings without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, inasmuch as a criminal case should be proved beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary evidence, whereas charges in the departmental proceedings should be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

3. The observations made by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [2005 (7) SCC 764], are extracted as under:-

“11. ... In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled.

Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with 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 enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, 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 delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘prepon