THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No13 of  2021 full order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:  06.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

W.P.No13 of  2021

 

V.Mohanraj                                                                                                                                  …    Petitioner

Vs.

 

  1. The Secretary,

Home Department,

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

 

  1. The Director General of Police,

Kamarajar Salai, Chennai- 600 004.

 

  1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

Coimbatore, Coimbatore-18.                                                  …    Respondents

 

Prayer:  Writ Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2020, 27.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 and promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police notionally w.e.f 2013 and then as Additional Superintendent of Police on par with the petitioner’s juniors with all attendant and consequential benefits.

 

For Petitioner   : Mr.N.Naganathan

 

For  Respondents  : Mr.J.Pothiraj

Special Government Pleader

*****

 

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2020, 27.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 for promotion.

 

  1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he has been falsely implicated in a case, which is pending for nearly 10 years, consequent to which, he was placed under Suspension on 16.02.2010. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 04.09.2018, he has been reinstated into service. However, he has been deprived of promotion, for which he made a representation for consideration of his promotion as Inspector.

 

  1. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents would submit that serious charges have been made against the petitioner and other officers and they swindled crores of money. He would further submit that the factum of conclusion of the criminal case needs to be ascertained. It is submitted that as the matter is sub-judice, no promotion need to be given as the petitioner has to face the departmental proceedings and on account of pendency of case in various forms, departmental proceedings could not have been concluded at the earliest point of time.

 

  1. According to the petitioner, there is no departmental proceedings initiated against him and he was reinstated into service pursuant to the orders of this Court, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of TN vs. Promod Kumar IPS and another, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4060 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another, reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119.

 

  1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

 

  1. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not going to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector by including him in the panel and it is for the respondents to consider the same. It is needless to mention that if any departmental proceedings have been commenced or initiated, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the same so as to bring the proceedings to a logical end, dehors pendency of the criminal case, as both criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously and the 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. If Criminal Proceedings are not initiated or concluded within one year from the date of FIR, there is no hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the departmental proceedings on day to-day basis and bring the issue to a logical end at the earliest point of time and the employee will have to participate in the departmental proceedings and shall not attempt to adopt dilatory tactics.

 

  1. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish v. and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, has clearly laid down a dictum as under:

“19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non- availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order.

In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part and to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”

 

  1. For the purpose of brevity, this Court makes it very clear that if any criminal proceedings have been initiated after commencement of the departmental proceedings, the one year time limit mentioned supra will not apply to those cases and the departmental proceedings shall go on uninterruptedly. Invariably, the offenders, who have committed grave offences, are being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, owing to missing link in the chain of events and are trying to get back the entire backwages and for those persons, employment itself is a lottery.

 

  1. In the present case on hand, even according to the petitioner, a charge memo has been issued as early as on 18.12.2015 and in case any departmental proceedings had already commenced, the same shall be proceeded on a day to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time and brought to a logical conclusion at the earliest. The petitioner shall co-operate for early attainment of the proceedings.

 

  1. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

 06.01.2021

Index:yes/No

Speaking order / Non speaking order

vum

 

Note: Issue order copy on 22.01.2021

 

To:

 

  1. The Secretary,

Home Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

 

  1. The Director General of Police,

Kamarajar Salai,

Chennai- 600 004.

 

  1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

Coimbatore,

Coimbatore-18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.,

vum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W.P.No.13 of 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

06.01.2021

You may also like...