IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.02.2019

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

WP.No.2059 of 2018

and W.M.P.Nos.2576 and 2577 of 2018

P.Loganathan ...Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy Collector/District Manager,

TASMAC Limited,

Dharmapuri. ... Respondent

PRAYER:-

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a writ of cetiorarified mandamus to call for the

records pertaining to the impugned order of suspension dated

31.10.2017 passed by the respondent in his proceedings of

Na.Ka.No.945/2017/C.V.2 and quash the same and consequently

directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and

regularize the period of suspension as duty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

For Respondent : Mr.V.Arunkumar

for B.Nedunchezhian

Standing Counsel for TASMAC.

O R D E R

The order of suspension dated 31.10.2017, which is impugned,

states that on account of serious irregularities committed by

the writ petitioner, he was placed under suspension. The charges

are also stated in the impugned order. The writ petitioner was

directed to submit his explanation/objection within a period of

seven (7) days from the date of receipt of charge memo issued

under proceedings dated 31.10.2017. Instead of defending his

case by submitting explanation, the writ petitioner has chosen

to file the present writ petition on the ground that the order

of suspension has been issued along with the charge memo.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the writ petitioners has already submitted his explanation to

the charges.

3. A plain reading of the allegations set out in the

impugned charge memo reveals that the nature of allegations set

out are undoubtedly serious and a criminal case was also

registered agaisnt the writ petitioner on 15.10.2017, by

Adiyamankottai Police Station registered in F.I.R No.354 dated

15.10.2017 under the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. The said

criminal case is pending completion of investigation. This

being the factum of the case, the ground raised by the writ

petitioner deserves no consideration.

4. An order of suspension cannot be construed as a

punishment. Suspension is an interim arrangement made under the

Rules to keep the delinquent employee away from performance his

official duties till the completion of enquiry. Suspension

being not a punishment, this Court is of the opinion that there

is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the respondent

in placing the writ petitioner under suspension vide the charge

memo, wherein, the charges are also set out. The writ petitioner

had already submitted his explanation/objection in respect of

the allegations set out in the relief sought for. Thus, the

competent disciplinary authority has to conduct the enquiry, and

based on the enquiry report, all further actions shall be

initiated for passing final order in the departmental

disciplinary proceedings.

5. It is clarified that mere pendancy of the criminal case

is not a bar for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the

departmental disciplinary proceedings. The criminal case

requires a high standard of proof to establish the crime and to

convict the person. However, no such strict proof is required

for the purpose of concluding the departmental disciplinary

proceedings. Preponderance of probability is enough to punish a

public servant under the Disciplinary Rules. Thus, there is no

impediment for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the

departmental disciplinary proceedings, conclude the same and

pass final orders in the departmental proceedings.

6. However, the said exercise shall be done if records to

establish the charges are available with the respondent.

In the even