High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 02.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.No.24443 of 20011. The Director of Sericulture, Department of Sericulture, 249, 2nd Agraharam, Salem 636 001.2. The Regional Deputy Director of Sericulture, Dharmapuri.3. The Enquiry Officer/ Assistant Director of Sericulture (Grainage), Krishnagiri .. Petitioners Versus1. K.S.Ramamurthy Asst. Inspector of Sericulture O/o The Assistant Director Sericulture, Alangayam Koottu Road, Khaderpet, Anna Salai, Vaniyambadi 635 751.2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, High Court Buildings, Chennai 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India toissue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the orderin O.A.No1331 of 1997 dated 27.9.2001 on the file of the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, Chennai, the second respondent herein and quashthe same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners : Mr.M.Dhandapani,Spl.G.P.For respondents : No appearanceO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)Though notice was served on the first respondent, there was norepresentation either in person or through counsel. When the writpetition was last posted on 28.06.2007, we directed the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader to verify as to whether the first respondent is stillin service. Learned Special Government Pleader ascertained the said factand represented that the first respondent is working as AssistantInspector of Sericulture in the Office of the Assistant Director ofSericulture, Vaniyambadi. In spite of service of notice, the firstrespondent has not shown any interest to defend himself and hence weproceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits.2.The petitioners are the Director of Sericulture, Salem, theRegional Deputy Director of Sericulture, Dharmapuri and the AssistantDirector of Sericulture, Krishnagiri. The third petitioner is stated tobe the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charges levelledagainst the first respondent. While the first respondent was working asAssistant Inspector of Sericulture in Pennagaram, Dharmapuri Districtbetween 01.07.1990 and 06.07.1993, it was alleged that he misappropriatedthe funds of the department by drawing a larger amount but disbursing asmaller amount towards purchase of cocoons from the farmers. The totalmisappropriated amount was stated to be a sum of Rs.58,770.40. He wasissued with a charge memo dated 31.05.1994. He was also placed undersuspension, pending disciplinary action by order dated 06.09.1993. Apartfrom the issuance of the charge memo, a criminal complaint was also lodgedagainst the first respondent before the Sub Inspector of Police, D.C.B.Dharmapuri. A charge sheet was also laid before the Judicial Magistrate,Palacode in C.C.No.127 of 1995. In the above stated circumstances, thefirst respondent approached the State Administrative Tribunal challengingthe charge sheet dated 31.05.1994 in O.A.No.1331 of 1997. The Tribunalheld that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the departmentalenquiry cannot go on. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the thirdpetitioner to stay the enquiry proceedings till the criminal case isdisposed of and thereafter, proceed according to the decision of thecriminal Court. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, thepetitioners have come forward with this writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The sole contention of the first respondent before the Tribunalwas that if he is allowed to participate in the enquiry, he would beseriously prejudiced if he were to disclose his evidence as that may haverepercussion in the criminal proceedings. The said stand of the firstrespondent weighed with the Tribunal which has passed the order impugnedin this writ petition.4. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing forthe petitioners brought to our notice the recent decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court reported in 2007(3)CTC 211 [NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. vs.NOIDA and others]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to all theearlier cases on this question has stated the legal position as under inparagraph No.16:"The purpose of Departmental Enquiry and of prosecution istwo different and distinct aspects. The Criminal prosecution islaunched for an offence for violation of a duty the offenderowes to the society, or for breach of which law has providedthat the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. Socrime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omissionof public duty. The Departmental enquiry is to maintaindiscipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Itwould, therefore, be expedient that the Disciplinary proceedingsare conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It isnot, therefore, desirable to lay down any guideline asinflexible rules in which the Departmental proceedings may ormay not be stayed pending trial in Criminal case against thedelinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in thebackdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be nobar to proceed simultaneously with Departmental enquiry andtrial of a Criminal case unless the charge in the Criminal Trialis of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact andlaw. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, asdistinguished from mere private rights punishable under Criminallaw. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should bein accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidencedefined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case ofDepartmental enquiry. The enquiry in a Departmental proceedingsrelates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officerto punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevantstatutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof orapplicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required tobe seen is whether the Department enquiry would seriouslyprejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in aCriminal case. It is always a question of fact to be consideredin each case depending on its own facts and circumstances."5. Further in the case on hand, while entertaining this writpetition, an order of interim stay of the Tribunal's order was granted inWPMP No.36175 of 2001. Subsequently, the said interim stay was madeabsolute by order dated 24.04.2002. Nevertheless, it is stated by thelearned Special Government Pleader that the enquiry has not yet beenproceeded with awaiting the outcome of this writ petition.6. We bestowed our serious consideration to the facts involved aswell as the law set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovereferred to judgment. The charge against the petitioner is that hemisappropriated a sum of Rs.58,770.40. Therefore at the outset, it willhave to be stated that the said charge does not involve any complicatedquestion of facts and law in order to state that the disciplinaryproceedings should await the outcome of the criminal case. That apart, inthe decision referred to above, an earlier decision of the Supreme Courtreported in 1999(3)SCC 679 [M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.] hasalso been referred to. As many as five conclusions have been set out inPaul Anthony's case and conclusion Nos.1, 4 and 5 are relevant for ourpresent purpose. In conclusion No.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made itclear that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal casecan proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted assuch. In conclusion No.4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear thatthe departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. Again inconclusion No.5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that if the criminalcase does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, thedepartmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of thependency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as toconclude them at an early date. 7. Therefore, applying the above provisions set down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court to the case on hand, we are convinced that the departmentalproceedings initiated against the first respondent cannot be delayedfurther awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Moreover, asstated by us earlier, there were no complicated question of law or factsinvolved in the alleged charge of misappropriation levelled against thefirst respondent. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not considered any ofthe above factors while passing the order impugned in this writ petition.We are therefore, obliged to interfere with the same and the writ petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stands allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Thepetitioners are directed to proceed with the enquiry in accordance withlaw and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.gmsSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Director of Sericulture, Department of Sericulture, 249, 2nd Agraharam, Salem 636 001.2. The Regional Deputy Director of Sericulture, Dharmapuri.3. The Enquiry Officer/ Assistant Director of Sericulture (Grainage), Krishnagiri.+ One cc to Govt Pleader sR 39659NSM (co)sg 12/7/07 W.P.No.24443 of 2001