CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that conduct of criminal prosecution of a government employee is not a bar on holding departmental disciplinary proceedings for delinquency.
The ruling was issued by a division bench of justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar while setting aside the October 14, 2024 order of a single judge who had ordered keeping in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings against a superintendent of Forest Engineering department in Dharmapuri on the ground that such proceedings, based on same set of evidence and witnesses, would prejudice the officer in the ongoing criminal prosecution.
The superintendent, T Dhanalakshmi of Dharmapuri, was arrested by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption personnel in 2018 for demanding and accepting bribe. Subsequently, she was placed under suspension and the Conservator of Forests, Dharmapuri, issued a charge memo on March 3, 2023 and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated on March 23, 2023.
The criminal prosecution was going on at the chief judicial magistrate court which is the special court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act. She sought the court to stall the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal prosecution is completed. The single judge ordered in her favour.
Challenging the order, the authorities filed a writ appeal. Allowing this appeal, the division bench, in its recent order, said, “Even in cases where documents, both in criminal case and departmental proceedings, are one and the same and the department is in possession of documents to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, there is no impediment to continue the disciplinary proceedings, conclude the same and pass final orders.”
The bench explained that criminal prosecution is launched for an offence of violation of a duty the officer owes to the society or for breach of the law whereas, the departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline and efficiency of public service.
“There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law,” the bench ruled.
