V KANNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, by the petitioner, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings No.89869/SCI (1) (83), dated 25.07.2000 initiated against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum, within a stipulated period.

(2.) As it appears from the averments in this writ petition, the petitioner joined the medical service in the State of Tamil Nadu, on 211.1965 and during the course of his employment, he was posted in the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, in the Government General Hospital, Madras. However, while he was working as Head of the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, the Director of Medical Education lodged a complaint before the CID, Crime Branch, alleging that there was over-indenting and short accounting of Chemicals in the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism at Government General Hospital, Chennai, which resulted in falsification of accounts for the purpose of misappropriation of valuable chemicals and basing on such complaint, a case was registered against three persons namely; (1) Thiru.Samuel Paul, Medical Store-Keeper; (2) Thiru D.M.Ganesh Shah, Technician Grade II and (3) Thiru.Arthur Victor, Office Assistant, who were working in the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Government General Hospital, Madras. However, during the course of investigation, the Crime Branch basing on a confession of one Thiru.Karthikeyan, Technician Grade-I implicating the petitioner in the said case, arrested the petitioner on 27.08.1983. In view of the indictment of the petitioner in the said criminal case he was put under suspension vide G.O.(Ms) No.1509, Health dated 09.09.1983. Prosecution was also launched by filing a charge sheet against the petitioner after obtaining sanction from the Government vide C.C. No.7974 of 1986 of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Since the criminal case against the petitioner was not finalized for a long time and the petitioner was continued to be kept under suspension, the same was challenged by the petitioner in WP No.14087 of 1989 before this Court, which was ultimately transferred to the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and registered as T.A.No.643 of 1989, wherein, a final order was passed on 09.04.1991, to the effect that if the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner does not reach its finality by 30.06.1991, he should be restored to duty. The criminal prosecution, thereafter, having not been finalized within the stipulated period, the petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted in Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur vide G.O.(D) No.142 dated 01.10.1991, at which place, he joined on 11.03.1992 FN. The petitioner in the meantime was also promoted. The petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No.9962 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai seeking regularization of his service, release of the subsistence allowance from the period from 01.04.1988 to 10.03.1992, update the leave account and also fix the duty pay at appropriate stage from 11.03.199 Before disposal of the same, the petitioner reached his date of superannuation, i.e., 30.10.2000. However, without regularization of the service of the petitioner as aforesaid and also releasing his legitimate dues, a charge memo was issued against him some days before his retirement, i.e., on 25.07.2000 vide Charge Memorandum Proceeding No.99869/S.C.I/1/83 indicating the misconduct as alleged in the Criminal Misc. Case and on the very date of his superannuation, he was not allowed to retire and put under suspension vide G.O.(D) No.1353/H. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Original Application, i.e., O.A. No.6801 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai to quash the Charge Memorandum initiated vide the aforesaid proceeding and consequently allowed the petitioner to retire on the date of his superannuation. The Tribunal vide a common order dated 05.12001 has disposed of both the aforesaid Original Applications with a direction to pay the subsistence allowance and also the provisional pension equivalent to the subsistence allowance from 01.11.2000, i.e., from the next date of the superannuation due of the petitioner. The Tribunal in its order dated 05.12001 also observed that the result of the Departmental enquiry shall be in accordance with the Criminal Court judgment. After disposal of the aforesaid Original Applications, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide C.C. No.7974 of 1986 which was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 13.03.2002 which has reached its finality. After such acquittal in the criminal prosecution, the petitioner made a representation on 23.09.2004 to drop the disciplinary proceedings against him and allow him to superannuate from service with retiral benefits. The said representation having not been considered/disposed of, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33260 of 2004 in this Court, which was disposed of, on 18.11.2004 with a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. After such order in the writ petition, the Government revoked the order of suspension and allowed the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.10.2000 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him vide G.O.(D) No.1396, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 21.12006, so also, an enquiry officer was appointed on 30.10.2007. Subsequently, the said Enquiry Officer before conclusion of the enquiry, superannuated from service and another enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings No.89869/SCI (1)/83 dated 18.08.2009. The petitioner attended such enquiry on 08.07.2013 but the enquiry having not been concluded, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding inter alia on the grounds that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him is vitiated due to inordinate delay in initiation as well as the conclusion of the same, more so in view of his acquittal in the Criminal Case on the selfsame charges.

(3.) The respondents have filed the counter affidavit controverting the averments made that the Departmental proceeding is vitiated for inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the same, inasmuch as the delay occurred due to non-availability of the record relating to the charge which was seized by the Crime Branch, there was delay in initiation of the Departmental proceeding and also the petitioner has contributed to such delay in disposal of the Departmental proceeding by getting the same stayed in different litigations. So also, challenge to the continuance of the Departmental proceeding on account of acquittal in criminal case is concerned, the same is disputed with the averment that acquittal in a criminal proceeding for the selfsame charge, does not necessarily need to quashment of the departmental proceeding, more so when the order of acquittal is not a honourable one and the petitioner has been involved in a serious misconduct of misappropriation of huge amount of Chemicals in the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism by over-indenting and siphoning the same, hence the writ petition is devoid of merit.