Fundamental Rules Of TN Government- Employer Cannot Initiate Departmental Proceedings After Lapse Of Five Years From Acquittal Of Employee: Madras HC

While considering a critical case where even after a lapse of more than five years from the date of suspension and even after a lapse of more than five years from the date of acquittal from the criminal case mentioned in the suspension G.O, no departmental proceedings were ever initiated, the Madras High Court debarred the respondents from initiating any departmental proceeding any further for those alleged incidents which had taken place before suspension.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed that “without the sanction of the Government, the respondents cannot initiate any departmental proceedings with respect to the subsequent crime which has been registered as against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai in RC 2(A)/2020/CBI/ACB, Chennai on 04.03.2020, which has also been registered as a result of the petitioner's alleged involvement pertaining to a private affair.”

Advocate P. Mahendran appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate M. Prakash appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the Petitioner was working in a National Highways Department as a Divisional Engineer NABARD and Rural at Sattur. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai, initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner alleging that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income, while he was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural at Sattur and registered a case against him for the offences punishable under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Meanwhile, the petitioner's date of superannuation pass. The Respondents placed the petitioner under suspension by not permitting him to retire from his services. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Section 248(1) of CrPC. After the pronouncement of the said Judgment, the petitioner personally approached the respondents requesting to issue suitable orders in accordance with the law to declare that the petitioner was retired from service. However, his request was not heeded by the respondents. Left with no other option, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, revoke his suspension, and permit him to retire from service based on the acquittal judgment.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that neither any charge memo nor any departmental inquiry/disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

By referring the Rule 56(1)(c) of Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government, the Bench highlighted that “Whether a Government servant referred to in clause (c) is fully exonerated or not, he shall be considered to have been on extension of service for the period from the date of retirement to the date of termination of the proceedings. During such an extension of service, the service rights which have accrued to the Government servant shall freeze at the level reached on the date of retirement, and the salary during that period shall not exceed the pension which has accrued to the Government servant on that date.”

The Bench stated that there is no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner despite the registration of a corruption case and the pendency of a Special Case before the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai, and the respondents have deliberately refrained from issuing even a show cause notice against the petitioner.

By referring to the case of C. Mathesu Vs. The Secretary to Government and others, the Bench reiterated that despite keeping the petitioner under suspension and despite not permitting him to retire, the respondents have refrained from initiating any kind of inquiry against him.

The Bench stated that more than five years have elapsed from the date of registration of the said crime and more than five years have elapsed even from the date of acquittal, and on this count, the respondents ought to have revoked the suspension.

The Bench also stated that the subsequent registration of another criminal case by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai, as against the petitioner would be a bar for the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for revocation of suspension and permission to retire from service has nothing to do with the latter case of the CBI.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the orders passed by the Highways and Minor Ports Department and directed them to retire the Petitioner from his services with all monetary benefits.

Cause Title: S. Ovu Reddy v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order