M RAMASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (P1) DEPARTMENT; SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has worked as Administrative Officer in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Paramakudi, and he was arrested for offences under Section 7 and B(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, he was placed under suspension with effect from 31.12.2002 A.N and a case was registered against him for the aforesaid offence and charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.

(2.) The petitioner attained superannuation on 30.06.2003 and as the criminal case was under investigation at that time, by invoking FR 56(1) (c) of the fundamental Rules, the petitioner was not permitted to retire on his reaching the age of superannuation and retained in service until the criminal case under investigation was concluded. The petitioner submitted that the second respondent initiated departmental proceedings by his proceedings No. R.C. No. 411/O.P.2/2003 dated 24.07.2006 and charges were framed against him and at that time, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for deferring the departmental proceedings initiated against him by the second respondent till the criminal case pending against him, which is on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, is disposed of stating that the charges framed against him in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings are one and the same and as a matter of fact, the departmental proceedings are solely based on the criminal complaint and the witnesses are same in both the proceedings and if the departmental proceedings is allowed to continue he will be seriously prejudiced and it would also affect the criminal case and therefore, the departmental proceedings should be deferred till the disposal of the criminal case. The learned Counsel further relied on the G.O.Ms. No. 124 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N)dated 22.02.1983 in support of his argument.

(3.) Mr. Gandhiraj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken by them in the counter affidavit and argued that as per the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in, in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and Anr. v. P. Ganesan and Ors., 2008 1 SCC 650 the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained. He further submitted that the G.O.Ms. No. 124 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N) dated 22.02.1983 cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner and the departmental action proposed to be taken against the petitioner is confined only to the irregularities or lapses committed by the petitioner with reference to the administrative aspects and therefore, there is no prohibition for proceeding with the departmental proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.