Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is an unusual case, wherein, the petitioner, being the father-in-law, is facing the prosecution along with his wife and daughter, at the hands of his son-in-law in relation to the alleged incidents that arose out of the matrimonial dispute between his daughter and his son-in-law. The petitioner was a Driver in Agriculture Department, while his son-in-law is a practicing Advocate in Dharmapuri courts. 3. The marriage of his daughter took place with an Advocate by name Muniraj on 14.09.2005. Two children born out of the marriage. However, the matrimonial life was in trouble. The daughter of the petitioner filed a M.O.P. before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was ordered. But the order did not bring the parties together. The son-in-law of the petitioner filed M.O.P.No.5 of 2009 for divorce and the same is pending. 4. Two criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. One is relating to the alleged incident that took place on 02.03.2009 inside the Court Campus, Dharmapuri, when the son-in-law of the petitioner came out of the court premises, after attending the divorce case. The other incident allegedly took place on 26.03.2010, while the son-in-law of the petitioner was returning from the court premises to his house, after attending the divorce case. 5. The son-in-law gave a complaint on 03.03.2009 on the file of Dharmapuri B1 Police Station relating to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009 and the First Information Report was registered in Crime No.489 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 379 IPC. The curious allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioner often demanded money from the son-in-law through his daughter and also directed the son-in-law not to demand a sum of Rs.10,000/- paid to him by the son-in-law before the marriage. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner snatched the gold chain and bracelet of the complainant - Advocate. It was further alleged that the petitioner attempted to assault the complainant with a knife, but the heroic son-in-law prevented the same and escaped with some minor injuries. 6. The relevant portion of the First Information Report in Crime No.489 of 2009 is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL“ 7. After registering the First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 6. The relevant portion of the First Information Report in Crime No.489 of 2009 is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL“ 7. After registering the First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. He came out on bail only on 09.03.2009. The trial in the said case is pending in C.C.No.272 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri. Since he was remained in custody for more than 48 hours, invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he was placed under suspension by the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the third respondent. 8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9710 of 2009 to quash the aforesaid order of suspension dated 24.04.2009. The writ petition was dismissed on 30.04.2010. 9. The petitioner preferred W.A.No.99 of 2012 and the First Bench of this Court allowed the W.A.No.99 of 2012 on 07.06.2012 and revoked the order of suspension. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent issued the order, dated 06.07.2012 reinstating the petitioner into service. 10. Simultaneously, the Department initiated departmental proceedings by issuing the charge memo dated 20.10.2011, under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules on the alleged incident took place on 02.03.2009, for which, a criminal proceeding is pending, as stated above. 11. The disciplinary proceeding ended in the punishment order dated 11.06.2013 and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of three months. 12. Since the Department decided to take departmental action in relation to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009, the pendency of criminal case relating to the said incident has no consequence, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.NARAYANAN VS. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VIRUDHUNAGAR reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 708 , i.e., even assuming that the criminal case would result in conviction, the Department cannot proceed against the petitioner, since the department had chosen to take action departmentally on the same incident and also imposed the punishment. It has been by the Division Bench that it is open to the department authorities either to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) or the procedure under Rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It has been by the Division Bench that it is open to the department authorities either to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) or the procedure under Rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, when Rule 17(b) has already been followed and a punishment is imposed, it would not be permissible for the department authorities to again subject the very same delinquent to a fresh punishment on the self-same-allegation on the ground that such conduct has led to his conviction in a criminal case, which would amount to double jeopardy. 13. As far as the alleged incident that took place on 26.03.2010 was concerned, the son-in-law gave a complaint to the Dharmapuri Police Station. No First Information Report was registered. However, the complaint was acknowledged in CSR No.131 of 2010 by the police. Thereafter, the petitioner's son-in-law filed a private complaint in the year 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharmpuri, and pursuant to a direction issued by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, to register the complaint, the same was registered on 24.06.2011 in Crime No.1256 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC. This complaint is against the petitioner, his wife and his daughter. The trial is stated to be pending in relation to Crime No.1256 of 2011 in C.C.No.77 of 2012. 14. It is not in dispute that the Department did not choose to place the petitioner under suspension in relation to the criminal case in Crime No.1256 of 2011. If public interest requires, as per Rule 17(e) of TNCS (D&A) Rules, the department could place the delinquent / petitioner under suspension in relation to the criminal case. But the Department did not do so. 15. While so, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. Just two days before his retirement, the third respondent passed the order dated 28.06.2013 revoking the punishment order dated 11.06.2013, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment. It is interesting to note that the third respondent passed the said order dated 28.06.2013, based on the telephonic instructions issued by the fourth respondent. I am of the considered view that the fourth respondent cannot issue such an instruction through telephone. The order dated 28.06.2013 of the third respondent basing on such telephonic instruction is highly arbitrary. It is interesting to note that the third respondent passed the said order dated 28.06.2013, based on the telephonic instructions issued by the fourth respondent. I am of the considered view that the fourth respondent cannot issue such an instruction through telephone. The order dated 28.06.2013 of the third respondent basing on such telephonic instruction is highly arbitrary. The reason, that is given in para 10 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent, is that before the conclusion of the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.272 of 2009, the disciplinary proceeding could not have been finalized. As the third respondent -disciplinary authority was well aware of the pendency of the criminal proceeding, such an averment from the affidavit of the third respondent deserves to be rejected. In any event, I am also of the view that the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, relating to the alleged incident that took place on 02.03.2009 due to the matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the petitioner and his son-in-law, is not warranted. 16. The third respondent issued another order dated 29.06.2013, invoking FR 56(i)(c) placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings is pending with respect to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009, that is, since the earlier order of punishment dated 28.06.2013 of the third respondent was revoked based on the telephonic instructions issued by the fourth respondent, the third respondent proceeded on the basis that the disciplinary proceedings was pending and also that two criminal proceedings are pending and therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the eve of his retirement. 17. Thereafter, another order dated 30.06.2013 was passed by the third respondent not permitting the petitioner to retire from service. 18. The petitioner has filed writ petition No.27100 of 2013 to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.06.2013 and writ petition No.27101 of 2013 to quash the impugned orders dated 29.06.2013 and 30.06.2013 of the third respondent. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to allow him to retire with effect from 30.06.2013 and also to direct the respondents to pay him terminal benefits. 19. The aforesaid details would make it clear, in my considered view, that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 20. If the order dated 29.06.2013 placing the petitioner under suspension goes, the order dated 30.06.2013 not permitting the petitioner to retire would automatically go. 21. 19. The aforesaid details would make it clear, in my considered view, that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 20. If the order dated 29.06.2013 placing the petitioner under suspension goes, the order dated 30.06.2013 not permitting the petitioner to retire would automatically go. 21. The order dated 29.06.2013 is passed on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings is pending in relation to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009 and that criminal proceedings are pending in C.C.No.272 of 2009 and C.C.No.77 of 2012. 22. Though the disciplinary proceedings relating to the incident that took place on 02.03.2009 came to end, in view of passing the punishment order dated 11.06.2013, since the punishment order was revoked by the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 based on the telephonic instructions of the fourth respondent, the third respondent proceeded that the disciplinary proceedings is pending. 23. In my view, the order dated 28.06.2013 revoking the punishment order that too based on the telephonic instructions of the fourth respondent is bad and illegal. In fact, the Department is not justified in relying on these type of cases to proceed against the petitioner, as the same has nothing to do with his conditions of service and it is purely a matrimonial dispute of his daughter. At the most, they could wait for the outcome of the criminal case, but the department did not do so. On the other hand, they proceeded departmentally and imposed punishment. Thereafter, there is no question of revoking the punishment order. The punishment order is not questioned by the petitioner. Hence, the disciplinary proceeding already came to an end. The punishment order cannot be revoked so as to keep the petitioner under suspension, on the eve of his retirement, on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding is pending. Hence, the order dated 28.06.2013 is liable to be quashed. 24. Since the disciplinary proceeding relating to the alleged incident that took place on 02.03.2009 came to be finalized by way of imposition of some punishment, the department can have no right to take any action based on the criminal proceeding relating to the same incident in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.NARAYANAN VS. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VIRUDHUNAGAR reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 708 . Hence, the reliance placed on the pendency of the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.272 of 2009 is bad and illegal. 25. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VIRUDHUNAGAR reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 708 . Hence, the reliance placed on the pendency of the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.272 of 2009 is bad and illegal. 25. The department did not choose to place the petitioner under suspension, when investigation was pending in Crime No.1256 of 2011 and later criminal trial was pending in C.C.No.77 of 2012, while he was in service. This implies that the department was of the opinion that no public interest required to place him under suspension. If it is so, there is absolutely no reason to place the petitioner under suspension on the eve of his retirement. 26. Since the order dated 28.06.2013 is quashed and also I came to the conclusion that the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.Nos.272 of 2009 and 77 of 2012 cannot be a valid reason to place the petitioner under suspension, the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 placing the petitioner under suspension is liable to be quashed. 27. Since the order dated 29.06.2013 is liable to be quashed, the consequential order dated 30.06.2013 is also liable to be quashed. 28. In the result, the impugned orders dated 28.06.2013, 29.06.2013 and 30.06.2013 are quashed. Accordingly, both Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2013, and to pay all the terminal benefits including pension due to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.