Judgment :- Petitioner challenges the Orders dated 13. 2007 and 13. 2007 passed by the Government and the Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms respectively holding that there is no necessity for taking action against the Respondents 4 to 7 under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Consequent on the abolition of the office of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax in the year 2004, the Government passed orders for redeployment of the surplus staff at different cadres viz. Superintendent, Assistant, Junior Assistant, Steno-typist, Typist, Record Clerk, Office Assistant and Driver in various Departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The residual work of the office of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax was entrusted to the office of the Commissioner of Land Reforms. Petitioner is one such defunct employee of Agricultural Income Tax Office working with the 3rd Respondent. (ii) Grievance of the Petitioner is that on 13. 2006, Respondents 4 to 7 have abused one Senthilkumar belonging to Schedule Caste calling him by his caste. According to Petitioner, when she intervened questioning the 6th Respondent, she was also abused calling her by her caste. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Petitioner, Criminal case was registered against the Respondents 4 to 7 under Sec.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PA) Act and Sec.506(ii) IPC. After committal, cases were taken on file in S.C.Nos.509 and 510/2006 on the file of Prl. Sessions Court at Chennai. (iii) On 011. 2006, Petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd Respondent for placing four officials under suspension under rule 17(c) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [for short TNCS(D&A) Rules] during the pendency of criminal cases. Petitioner was a prosecution witness in the criminal case. She has filed W.P.No.49961/2006 praying for direction to consider her representation dated 011. 2006 to take action against Respondents 4 to 6. By the order dated 212. 2006, High Court passed an order directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. (iv) By the Proceedings No.14/2007/B1 dated 13. 2007, 2nd Respondent has passed an order stating that there was no necessity to take action under rule 17(c) of TNCS (D&A) Rules which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2006, High Court passed an order directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. (iv) By the Proceedings No.14/2007/B1 dated 13. 2007, 2nd Respondent has passed an order stating that there was no necessity to take action under rule 17(c) of TNCS (D&A) Rules which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. In the mean while, Criminal cases in S.C.Nos.509 and 510/2006, Respondents 4 to 7 were acquitted by the Judgment dated 05. 2007. (v) Petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent on the ground that Rule 17(c) of TNCS (D&A) is clear to the effect that if a Government employee faces criminal trial or when the criminal case is under investigation, the said Officer has to be suspended pending criminal case in public interest. According to the Petitioner, Respondents 1 and 2 are bound to follow the rule 17(c) of TNCS (D&A) and place the Respondents 4 to 7 under suspension. It is the further case of the Petitioner that public interest requires that all four officials facing criminal trial should be suspended from service in public interest and that the officials are threatening the witnesses and Petitioner and other witnesses are facing harassment every day and therefore, necessarily action ought to have been taken against the Respondents 4 to 7 by suspending them under rule 17(c) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. 3. Resisting the Petition, Respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter stating that Departmental Enquiry Officer has found that the allegations in the complaint were not proved and Government has passed orders on 13. 2007 holding that there was no necessity for taking action under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules in view of the fact – (a) Departmental Enquiry Officer found that the allegations were not proved beyond doubt; (b) Criminal cases were pending before Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. According to the Respondents, in view of the subsequent developments that the criminal cases ended in acquittal, Writ Petition itself has become infructuous. 4. During the pendency of Writ Petition, 4th Respondent Ganesan reported dead. 5. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner, learned AGP appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 7. 6. Mr. G. Justin, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that on the date of impugned order (13. 4. During the pendency of Writ Petition, 4th Respondent Ganesan reported dead. 5. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner, learned AGP appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 7. 6. Mr. G. Justin, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that on the date of impugned order (13. 2007), criminal cases were pending and therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken note of the pendency of criminal cases. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Petitioner has filed Criminal Revision in the High Court challenging the order of acquittal and when the Criminal Revision is continuation of the criminal case, Respondents 1 and 2 are to be directed to invoke rule 17(e) of TNCS (D & A) Rules for suspending the Respondents 5 to 7. .7. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned AGP has submitted that based on the report of the Departmental Enquiry Officer, Respondents 1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Respondents 5 to 7 are baseless and therefore, the impugned order was passed holding that there was no necessity for taking action under rule 17(e) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. Learned AGP has further urged that the impugned order is also supported by subsequent development of acquittal in the criminal cases. 8. Ms. Usha Tholgappian, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 5 to 7 has submitted that 6th Respondent is due for promotion and while so, taking advantage of pendency of this Writ Petition, Petitioner has been sending number of Petitions to the higher officials making frivolous allegations against the 6th Respondent. Learned counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7 further submitted that when the criminal cases ended in acquittal, department cannot be directed to wait for the out come of the Criminal Revision preferred by the Petitioner. 9. Rule 17(c) of TNCS (D & A) Rules deals with the "Procedure to be followed when a Government servant is convicted on a criminal charge." 10. Rule 17(e) of TNCS (D & A) Rules deals with the "Conditions under which a member of Civil service be placed under suspension. Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of TNCS (D & A) Rules contemplates that a member of the Civil service may be placed under suspension where a criminal offence is under investigation only if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of TNCS (D & A) Rules contemplates that a member of the Civil service may be placed under suspension where a criminal offence is under investigation only if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. The suspension orders could be passed only where public interest is involved. 11. It is for the competent departmental authorities to decide on the necessity for invoking the provisions contained in rule 17(c) of TNCS (D& A) Rules to place the officials under suspension in public interest. From the averments in the counter-affidavit and submissions of the learned AGP, it comes to be known that disciplinary action was initiated against the Respondents 4 to 7 and enquiry was also conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Departmental Enquiry Officer has found that the allegations in the complaint were not proved. Based on the report of the Departmental Enquiry Officer, Government passed the impugned order on 13. 2007 holding that there was no necessity for taking action under rule 17(e) of TNCS (D & A) Rules. When the impugned order is based upon the report of Departmental Enquiry Officer, the same cannot be assailed. It cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind. .12. Subsequent development is also relevant to be noted. After full trial in S.C.Nos.509 and 510/2006, the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai held that serious doubts arise about the happening of the occurrence and that evidence of prosecution witnesses are not reliable to base the conviction and on those findings, acquitted the Respondents 4 to 7. Acquittal of criminal case after full trial assumes significance. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that challenging the order of acquittal, Petitioner has filed Criminal Revision and the Criminal Revision is continuation of proceedings and therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken appropriate action against the Respondents 5 to 7 by placing them under suspension. As pointed out earlier, criminal cases ended in acquittal after full trial holding that the charges were not proved and that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. When a charge has been enquired into and when the accused were acquitted by competent criminal Court, competent departmental authority cannot again enquire into the same charge, so long as the acquittal before the criminal Court is not on any technical ground. 14. When a charge has been enquired into and when the accused were acquitted by competent criminal Court, competent departmental authority cannot again enquire into the same charge, so long as the acquittal before the criminal Court is not on any technical ground. 14. Petitioner appears to be obstinate in seeing that departmental action being initiated against the Respondents 5 to 7. After dismissal of earlier W.P.No.49961/2006, there was some administrative delay in disposing the Petitioners representation dated 011. 2006. Petitioner has also filed Contempt Petition No.206/2007 against Tmt.O.P.Sosamma, I.A.S., Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms for not passing the orders within the time stipulated in the order in W.P.No.49961/2006. .15. Question whether the delinquent officers have been substantially acquitted on identical charge has to be viewed as one of substance and not of form. There was substantial acquittal of the officer on a criminal charge and not merely on technical ground. When after full trial, Respondents 5 to 7 were acquitted, it would be improper for the departmental enquiry to continue or place them under suspension. 4th Respondent (M.Ganesan) has died and 5th Respondent (R. Sairam) has already retired. 6th Respondent (T.M. Mohamed Abubacker) is said to be due for promotion. No public interest seems to be involved for placing the Respondents 6 and 7 under suspension invoking rule 17(e) (ii). To invoke rule 17(e)(ii) of TNCS (D & A) Rules and to place 6th Respondent under suspension would only be vindictive. When the impugned order is based upon the report of Departmental Enquiry Officer, which is fortified by subsequent developments and the Writ Petitioner cannot successfully challenge the impugned order. 16. It is very unfortunate that even after the acquittal of the delinquents, Petitioner insisted upon taking disciplinary action against the Respondents 6 and 7. Even when the authority thought fit not to initiate any disciplinary action, Petitioner seems to have filed number of Petitions seeking one direction or another. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to instill a sense of responsibility to the Petitioner, she has to be directed to pay cost to State Legal Services Authority. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to instill a sense of responsibility to the Petitioner, she has to be directed to pay cost to State Legal Services Authority. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost. Writ Petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this Order, failing which Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority is at liberty to recover the same from the Petitioner.