Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2558 (MAD)

K. Selvakumar v. District Manager Karur

2014-08-12

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Order 1. The petitioners are the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited working in various capacities in the retail vending shops of the respondent Corporation. 2. The allegation against all the three petitioners is that they were illegally running a bar in the shop and as a result of which the respondent has given a complaint before the police which is now pending in Crime No.380 of 2013 on the file of the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing II, Kulithalai and in Crime No.294 of 2013 on the file of the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing III, Aravakuruchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings if considered as a show cause notice, the same cannot be proceeded with since already the respondent has set the criminal law in motion and the complaint has been lodged and first information report is pending. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in 1999 3 SCC 679 . 4. It is submitted that though in two of the cases in W.P(MD)Nos.724 and 732 of 2014 an order of interim stay has been granted, the petitioners are yet to be reinstated and they are still kept under suspension. 5. It is true that in respect of the same allegation a criminal complaint is pending before the police and the first information report is under investigation. Hence, for the same set of allegations, now the petitioners are sought to be proceeded against departmentally and in such an event, the petitioners may be compelled to disclose their defence before the departmental proceedings which may prejudice their rights before the criminal forum where the punishment would be more severe in the event of the offence has been established against them. Therefore, this Court of the view that the impugned charge memo/show cause notice should be deferred, till the criminal complaints attain finality. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till date except for registering the first information report, nothing has been done and no charge memo has been filed. 7. Therefore, this Court of the view that the impugned charge memo/show cause notice should be deferred, till the criminal complaints attain finality. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till date except for registering the first information report, nothing has been done and no charge memo has been filed. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the police, namely, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing II, Kulithalai and the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing III, Aravakuruchi to conduct the investigation in Crime No.380 of 2013 and Crime No.294 of 2013 respectively and conclude the same and file a final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be entitled to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. Since the petitioners are yet to be reinstated, this Court is of the view that there are criminal cases pending, the petitioners can be kept under suspension subject to the condition that they shall be paid subsistence allowance. The arrears of subsistence allowance shall also be disbursed within two weeks and till the criminal complaints are concluded, the petitioners shall be paid subsistence allowance on or before 5th of every month. Since the police are not party to the writ petitions, Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the concerned police station before whom the criminal complaints are pending. After conclusion of the criminal proceedings, it is open to the respondent corporation to proceed with the impugned charge memos, if they so desire. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.