(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of suspension passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in C.No.C1/16353/2013 and R.O.O.No.580/2013 dated 04.10.2013, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in ROC.No.B1/397/2025 dated 25.01.2025 and quash the same.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 06.05.2025 in ROC.No.B1/1203/2025 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by posting the petitioner in a non-sensitive post with all attendant service and monetary benefits, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.07.2026 and in accordance with GO.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, dated 04.08.2022.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in ROC.No.9721/2024/F2 dated 19.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner's representation, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.)
Common Order
1. The petitioners are government servants, against whom criminal cases were filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on traps conducted by the Vigilance Department. Therefore, they were placed under suspension, as per Rule 17(2)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. WP(MD)Nos.23098 of 2026, 24494 of 2026 and 24554 of 2026 have been filed to set aside the suspension orders as against the petitioners and WP(MD)No.25656 of 2026 has been filed challenging the rejection of the petitioner's request for revocation of his suspension order.
2. The petitioners have taken a common ground that they are under suspension for a prolonged period and that disciplinary enquiry has not been conducted as against them.
3.(i)The petitioner in WP(MD)No.23098 of 2026 was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police. He was arrested based on a trap laid by the Vigilance Department on 03.10.2013 in Crime No.8 of 2013 and was suspended on 04.10.2013.
(ii)The petitioner in WP(MD)No.24494 of 2026 was serving as a Village Administrative Officer. He was arrested based on a trap laid by the Vigilance Department on 24.01.2025 in Crime No.1 of 2025 and was suspended on 25.01.2025.
(iii)The petitioner in WP(MD)No.24554 of 2026 was serving as a Village Administrative Officer. He was arrested based on a trap laid by the Vigilance Department on 05.05.2025 in Crime No.3 of 2025 and was suspended on 06.05.2025.
(iv)The petitioner in WP(MD)No.25656 of 2026 was serving as a Junior Assistant. He was arrested based on information provided during a trap conducted on 04.07.2024 in Crime No.15 of 2024 and was suspended on 05.07.2024.
4. Insofar as WP(MD)No.23098 of 2026 is concerned, the learned Government Counsel has taken a stand that though the criminal case was registered in the year 2013, the disciplinary proceedings were commenced in the year 2023, pursuant to the directions of the Government in G.O.(Ms.)No.66 and the enquiry was completed in the year 2026 and a punishment of removal from service was imposed on 20.08.2026. Insofar as the other petitions are concerned, the learned Government Counsel has taken a stand that the petitioners were arrested in trap cases and hence, the suspension cannot be revoked until the criminal proceedings are concluded.
5. Before considering the above stand of the respondents, it would be appropriate to notice the manner in which the involvement of a person in a criminal case is treated at the stage of entry into Government service. The Acts and Conduct Rules, which prescribe the manner in which appointments are made to Government Services, either prescribe a complete prohibition on persons involved in criminal cases from entering into the services or regard the involvement in such cases as a relevant factor in determining good character and antecedents, and also mandate disclosure of such involvement, so that the appointing authority can take a decision on the same.
6. A Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and Others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board [(2008) 2 MLJ 1203] has observed that the object behind such a condition, during entry into service, is to maintain purity of administration and ensure that those with a clean record in their personal life are employed by the State. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
“12.The impugned Rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. The object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond any shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the State. The Rule is only a reflection of the intention of the Government to maintain purity of administration. The Rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. That the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. Therefore, as an employer, the Government is entitled to prescribe, especially in a disciplined force like the police force, such a restriction at the entry level. There cannot be a dispute about the proposition that an employer has the right to prescribe any qualifications for appointment to a post. If that be so, an employer has a concomitant right even to prescribe disqualifications when it comes to appointment to a post. The prescription that Caeser's wife should be above suspicion, cannot be said to be faulty at least in this regard.
13. Persons who were never involved in criminal cases, need not be treated as equals to or on par with persons who were involved in criminal cases merely because they are acquitted later, especially in the matter of selection to the Police Service of the State. The classification made between them, is not only reasonable but also has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”
7. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605], wherein it was held that involvement in a criminal case, regardless of the actual result of the trial, is a relevant factor to determine the conduct and character of a candidate applying for a post under the State. The same is extracted hereunder:-
“It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was physically found fit, Passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined forces The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service.”
8. Similarly, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the employer can consider the effect of conviction, background facts of a case, nature of offence, etc., and, in case of acquittal, the nature of acquittal can be considered. The same is extracted hereunder:-
“30. ... An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.”
9. Some of the provisions and conduct rules of this State, which prescribe for a complete bar on involvement in criminal cases or consider the character and antecedents of the candidate as a relevant factor in deciding the eligibility of the candidate, are extracted hereunder for reference:-
(i) Rule 12(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955:-
“Rule 12: Qualifications- (b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the commission in cases where the appointment has to be made in consultation with it or the appointing authority, in other case—
(i)that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;”
The above rule was subsequently replaced by Section 20(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which provides as under:-
“Section 20: Qualifications- (4)No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Commission in cases where appointment has to be made in consultation with it or with appointing authority, in other cases-
(i)that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;”
(ii) Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973:-
“Rule 20: Integrity and devotion to duty- (1)Every member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.”
(iii) Rule 13(b) and 13(e) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and the explanation thereunder:-
“Rule 13: Qualifications- No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority:
... ... ...
(b)that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;
... ... ...
(e)that he has not involved in any criminal case before Police verification:
Explanation (1)- A person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2)- A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.”
(iv) Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978:-
“Rule 14: Qualifications- (b)No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority:
... ... ...
(b)that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;
... ... ...
(e)that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification:
Explanation (1)- A person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2)- A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.”
(v) Annexure 6 to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service:-
“Grade II Warders: Direct Recruitment-
... ... ...
(f)A person has not involved in any criminal case before Police verification:
Explanation(1): A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment”
(vi) Rule 5B(3) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Fire Subordinate Service:-
“(3)No person shall be eligible for appointment to the Service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification.
Explanation(1)-A person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation(2)-A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case is yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.”
(vii) Clause 12-A of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission's “Consolidated Instructions to Applicants” provides that suppression of material information, at any stage of the selection process, including criminal cases, irrespective of the outcome of such cases, arrests, convictions, disciplinary proceedings, etc., shall be a ground for debarment:-
“12A-The period for which candidates shall be debarred from appearing for the examinations / participating in the recruitment processes conducted by the Commission are shown in column (3) against the respective offences shown in column (2). Besides debarment, the candidate shall also be liable to rejection of candidature after due process, invalidation of answer papers, as the case may be. Criminal action may also be initiated against such candidates, wherever indicated:
| S.No. | Nature of Offence | Period of Debarment |
| .... | .... | .... |
| 3. | Suppression of material information, at any stage of the selection process, regarding: .... (iii) Criminal cases except the cases filed below the age of 18 (Juvenile) irrespective of the outcome of cases, arrests, convictions, disciplinary proceedings etc.,; ... | One Year |
10. The above principle assumes significance in the present context. If the character and antecedents of a person are considered with due seriousness before permitting him to enter Government service, the same cannot cease to matter after he enters service. Integrity and devotion to duty are requirements not only for entering Government service, but they are continuing obligations throughout service. Entry into service cannot dilute the obligation to maintain integrity; rather, that obligation continues with the same force throughout the period of service.
11. In these petitions, government servants who are involved in criminal cases and facing corruption charges have been allowed to continue in service and have been paid wages in the form of subsistence allowance for years together. The pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for conducting disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct. However, the disciplinary proceedings are not initiated, for reasons best known to the officers concerned. In fact, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.23098 of 2026 was suspended on 04.10.2013. However, disciplinary action as against her was initiated only in the year 2023, after a delay of 10 years, and a punishment of removal was imposed only in the year 2026. Insofar as the other cases are concerned, the petitioners are under suspension for more than one year, without initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners have been paid subsistence allowance for this period, without any work being extracted from them.
12. It is relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O. (Ms.)No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022, wherein directions have been provided for the conduct of simultaneous disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. This Government Order and the prior orders referred to in G.O.(Ms.)No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022, itself disclose that the conduct of simultaneous disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case has been directed since the year 1973 onwards, vide G.O.1344, Public (Services-B) Department dated 16.05.1973. By way of this Government Order, instructions were issued that there is no bar for taking both departmental action and Court proceedings simultaneously against Government servants. These directions were reiterated by the Government in Government Memorandum No.74332A/76-1, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N) Department dated 06.01.1997 and in G.O.Ms.No.124, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PER.N) Department dated 22.02.1983. In para 2(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.124, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PER.N) Department dated 22.02.1983, certain clarifications were issued with regard to the simultaneous conduct of disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings as under:-
“2.The Government have examined the above matter and have decided that the following procedure shall be adopted in such cases:
... ... ...
(ii)When the departmental as well as criminal action is initiated for the offences of the kind referred to in para 1 above in regard to departmental action, charges may be framed against him for the lapses committed by him and final orders may be passed after obtaining the required registers/ records/ documents from the court irrespective of the fact whether he is acquitted or not. Thus the departmental action will be confined to the irregularities or lapses committed by the accused officer with reference to the administrative aspect.”
13. By way of Government Letter (Ms.)No.1118/Per-N/1987, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-N) Department dated 22.12.1987 and also G.O.(Ms.)No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 30.01.1996, time limits were prescribed for the procedures to be followed in disciplinary proceedings, so as to avoid delay in processing the disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. Thereafter, doubts were raised by some of the disciplinary authorities as to whether authenticated Xerox or photocopies of the registers/documents which were seized by the investigation agency and were in the custody of the Court could be relied upon. The Government, vide Letter (Ms.)No.321, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 12.08.2004, clarified that the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with by marking the Xerox copies or photocopies of the original records, provided they are duly authenticated. It was also clarified that in case of any doubt or where it was felt that the original registers/records/documents have to be perused, the same can be called for from the Court through the Vigilance Department or through the concerned investigating agency.
14. Even after all these Government Orders and clarifications, departmental proceedings were not being initiated against persons who were arrested on trap. Therefore, a Division Bench of this Court came down heavily on the disciplinary authorities in The Additional Director General of Police (L&O) v. O.Baskaran [WA.No.1988 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021] and directed the Government to issue a circular to all Government Departments with regard to the guidelines to be followed, by distinguishing the difference between an ordinary suspension arising out of departmental proceedings and the deemed suspension on account of arrest and remand, pursuant to registration of a criminal case, especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following these directions and the subsequent orders passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.14356 of 2019 dated 08.02.2022, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.)No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022, prescribing guidelines for conducting simultaneous disciplinary proceedings for the same set of charges as in the criminal cases connected with the discharge of official duty, including Trap and Arrest cases, wherein the Government has prescribed the following guidelines:-
“(1)It is a settled law that criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated simultaneously, for a criminal misconduct committed by a Government Servant in connection with the discharge of his official duties;
(2)The nature of both proceedings and the test applied to reach final conclusion in the criminal case and in the departmental action are entirely different;
(3)In the criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', the accused cannot be convicted by a Court of Law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer by taking decision on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. To convict a person under criminal law, high standard of proof is required. Even the benefit of doubt would be a benefit for the accused in a criminal case. However, no such rigidity is required in a departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there is absolutely on bar to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, for the same set of charges as in the criminal case pending before the Court of Law and the same may be concluded without awaiting the outcome of the said criminal case. There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(4)The departmental enquiry and the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the departmental enquiry.
... ... ...
(12)As far as the departmental action on the corruption allegations are concerned, it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should wait for the final disposal of the criminal case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.49 of 1988). ...”
15. Thereafter, another Government Order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department dated 04.08.2022, outlining the above principles and reiterating the timeline for concluding disciplinary proceedings. This timeline was subsequently modified by the Government by issuing another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.34, Human Resource Management (N-2) Department dated 17.06.2026.
16. Despite the above Government Orders, in the cases on hand, disciplinary proceedings were initiated 10 years after the filing of the criminal case in WP(MD)No.23098 of 2026 and it appears that disciplinary proceedings have not even been initiated insofar as the other petitions are concerned, thereby enabling the delinquent officers, who were arrested in trap cases, to receive subsistence allowance without discharging any work.
17. Considering the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases of traps conducted by the Vigilance Department, are pending for years together, this Court directed the appearance of the learned Additional Advocate General.
18. Learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others [(1988) 4 SCC 319] and Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 3 SCC 679], submitted that it was held in these cases that, where the charges in the criminal case as against the delinquent are of grave nature, which involve complicated questions of law and fact, or the disciplinary proceedings would prejudice the defence of the employee in the criminal case, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. He submitted that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been incorporated under Clause 21 of G.O.(Ms.)No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022, that an administrative decision may be taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case, and the relevant clause is extracted hereunder:-
“(21)If a case involved complicated questions of the fact and law or examination of any witness in the departmental enquiry prior to the examination of the said witness before the Court in the connected criminal case would cause prejudice to the interest of the prosecution case pending in the Court and the disciplinary purpose of conducting enquiry, then administrative decision may be taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the disposal of the criminal case. However, the advisability and desirability has to be determined considering the facts of each case by the authority concerned. Therefore, it would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.”
19. This Court is unable to accept this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that there shall be no legal bar for simultaneous disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case, especially when allegations of corruption are involved, and the march of law in this regard is summarized hereunder for reference:-
(i)Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari [(1969) 1 SCR 134]:-
“3.The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him. The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court. But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has no such power. The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding. The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains a stay order, a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court. In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers.”
(ii)State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417]:-
“14.It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’, ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges...So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. ...”
(iii)A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya [(1997) 2 SCC 699]:-
“8.We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.”
(iv)Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas [(2004) 7 SCC 442]:-
“13.As stated above, in the case in hand, both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry and a criminal trial could not proceed simultaneously, hence, they stayed the departmental enquiry which by itself, in our opinion, is contrary to the principles laid down in the above cited cases.
14.We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges, in this background it is not necessary for us to go into the second question whether at least Charge 3 by itself could have been permitted to be decided in the departmental enquiry as contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the appellant.”
(v)Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry [(2005) 10 SCC 471]:-
“13.It is to be noted that in cases involving Section 13(1) (e) of the PC Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression “known sources of income” is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. The Explanation to Section 13(1) of the PC Act provides that for the purposes of the section, “known sources of income” means income derived from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. How the assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition. He has to satisfactorily account for the same. Additionally, issues covered by Charges 2 and 3 cannot be the subject-matter of adjudication in the criminal case.
14.That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. As noted in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at, at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the employer may get rid of him at the earliest.
15.Regarding aspects which are related to the criminal case, we do not express any opinion. The appellants are free to continue departmental proceedings. Since the criminal trial has commenced, it would be in the interest of parties to assist the Court for its expeditious disposal.”
(vi)P.Krishnakumar v. Personnal Assistant (General) to District Collector, Coimbatore [W.A.No.2728 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024]:-
“14.It is trite law that an employer can conduct departmental enquiry simultaneously during the pendency of trial in the criminal case with respect to the same set of charges.”
(vii)K.Arul Amaran v. Commissioner of Police, Trichy City [WP(MD)No.15496 of 2023 dated 28.11.2024]:-
“23.In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (arising out of cases seeking to stay of departmental proceeding citing pendency of the criminal case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act), this Court is of the considered opinion that merely because a criminal case has been filed on the same set of facts and the witnesses are the same, that cannot be the only factor to stay the departmental proceeding. That apart, charges have been framed for violation of Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. When the State alleges that its employee has violated the rules under the Government Servant Conduct Rules, they cannot be prevented from proceeding with the departmental enquiry citing that on similar set of facts, a criminal case is pending. When a criminal offence relates to the discharge of official duties, the department cannot be made to wait till the disposal of the criminal trial.
24.It is settled position of law that even after the delinquent is acquitted by the criminal Court, the Department can proceed with the domestic enquiry. In most of the cases, citing long delay in disposal of the criminal case, the suspension orders of the delinquent are being revoked and they are reinstated. In such circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are also stayed, that would result in permitting the charge sheeted persons to discharge their official duties for an indefinite period.”
20. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M.Paul Anthony's case (supra) has observed that in the event charges in the criminal case against the delinquent employee are of a grave nature which involve complicated questions of law and fact, or the defence of the accused person would be prejudiced, then it would be desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down any exhaustive test as to what would constitute complicated questions of law and fact. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey's case (supra) has categorically observed that it is not possible to evolve a straitjacket formula for the application of this rule. The subsequent decisions have also reiterated that the question whether disciplinary proceedings should be stayed has to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the mere pendency of a criminal case, by itself, does not furnish a ground to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance.
21. The disciplinary authority has a duty to preserve the institutional purity by taking action against those officers who are violating their duties and conduct rules. The disciplinary proceedings for violation of conduct rules and criminal proceedings cannot be said to operate in the same field. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to understand as to how the disciplinary authority can take a call on whether the disciplinary proceedings can be kept in abeyance, when the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently made it clear that there is no legal bar for simultaneous disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of criminal cases. At the most, the disciplinary authority may seek appropriate clarification from the judicial forum, if considered necessary. But, by keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance merely because the criminal case is pending, and thereby permitting such delinquent officers to continue in service and receive benefits, the very purpose of the conduct rules would be defeated. Such an approach on the part of the Government would neither serve the interest of the administration nor promote efficiency in public service; on the contrary, it would have the effect of enabling delinquent officers to avoid or delay the consequences of their misconduct.
22. These cases are not isolated instances wherein disciplinary proceedings are not being conducted. In the past one month alone, this Court found that, in several trap cases, disciplinary proceedings were neither initiated nor concluded for several years by referring to Clause 21 of G.O.(Ms.)No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022. As discussed supra, when the entry of a person with criminal antecedents into Government service is considered to have a bearing on the purity of administration, the involvement of a serving Government servant in a criminal case, particularly a corruption case arising out of the discharge of official duties, cannot be viewed with any lesser seriousness. In fact, the continued presence of such a person in service, without timely departmental action, has a direct bearing on the purity, functioning and reputation of the administration. Allowing such cases to remain pending for years would defeat the very purpose for which standards of integrity and conduct are prescribed for Government servants.
23. It appears that the directions for simultaneous proceedings, which have been issued from the year 1973 onwards till now, by way of Government Orders, circulars and instructions, are insufficient and the disciplinary authorities are not complying with the same. Therefore, in order to address this issue, this Court is of the opinion that these instructions and directions have to be incorporated under the existing rules, specifically the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and also the relevant conduct rules, so that the instructions are followed mutatis mutandis in other departments also. This would provide statutory backing for conducting simultaneous disciplinary proceedings.
24. The present Government claims that it has zero tolerance for corruption and is committed to a corruption-free society. If Government servants who are violating the conduct rules and engaging in corrupt practices are dealt with in a prompt manner, then it would send a strong message against corruption and also discourage other officers from committing such acts. Therefore, this Court expects the Government to take a call on this issue and bring in necessary amendments to the service rules, as indicated supra.
25. Insofar as WP(MD)No.23098 of 2026 is concerned, since it is reported that disciplinary enquiry was completed in the year 2026 and a punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner on 20.08.2026, the same is closed as infructuous. Insofar as the other writ petitions are concerned, they are disposed of with directions to the respective disciplinary authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that during the suspension period, pending disciplinary proceedings, the delinquents are entitled for the eligible subsistence allowance. It is made clear that failure to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, as directed above, would lead to a presumption that the disciplinary authorities are aiding the delinquent officers to escape from punishment, and may warrant initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings against such authorities as well.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.