JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. N VENUGOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 23. 1. 2003 and made in O. A. No. 8090 of 2001 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Madras , th e second respondent herein and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner in this case is the Joint Director of school Education (Personnel), Chennai, challenging the order of the second respondent-Tribunal, allowing the application filed by the first respondent, thereby setting aside his suspension order and consequently allowing the first respondent to retire with effect from 31. 5. 2001 with all benefits.

(3.) IN Paul Anthony's case, in paragraph-22, the Supreme Court has set out the guidelines with regard to the proceedings before the criminal court and departmental proceedings, which reads thus: "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " There is no finding that if the criminal Court acquits the person concerned, the Department proceedings should be dropped in every case.