JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 3082 of 2020. 1. The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 3082 of 2020. 2. The respondent, who was working as Assistant in the Appellant Corporation, was placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal case was under investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai City, based on graft charges. By judgment dated 30.10.2018, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case and thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated by issuance of charge memo dated 18.06.2019. The respondent submitted his explanation and an enquiry was also conducted. The inquiry officer submitted his report stating that all the charges against the respondent were not proved. While so, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and called for an additional explanation from the respondent by issuing a show-cause notice dated 27.01.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 3082 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge, by the order under challenge, had allowed the writ petition, challenging which the Corporation is before this Court by way of this appeal. 3. Mr. S. Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition dated 27.01.2020, which is nothing but a show cause notice asking the petitioner to furnish his additional explanation as the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer is unsustainable as no prejudice is going to be caused to the writ petitioner in case explanation is given. Moreover, he would submit that the Inquiry Officer's findings were given based on benefit of doubt and being a fact finding authority, he has to give his findings on the principle of “preponderance of probabilities.” Further, he would submit that there is no bar to initiate departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee for the same charges even after acquittal by the Criminal Court, if the competent authority is of the view that there are good grounds and sufficient evidence to proceed with. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the charge memo was issued after a period of 10 years, i.e. after the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case and that after a decade, the appellants cannot proceed further with the issuance of charge memo and appointing an Inquiry Officer. He would further submit that even-though he participated in the enquiry after issuance of charge memo, the Inquiry officer found him not guilty of the charges and submitted his report. Though the said report was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority had chosen to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without assigning any reason. According to the writ petitioner/respondent, the show cause notice issued calling for an additional explanation from the respondent, without recording the tentative reasons for disagreement, that too, by an incompetent authority, is unsustainable and the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. 5. Though the learned Single Judge has upheld the contention of the writ petitioner that there has been a delay of 10 years in initiation of disciplinary proceedings after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, we are of the view that after the conclusion of criminal proceedings, be it an acquittal, it is open to the Department to proceed against the delinquent employee by issuing a charge memo and the employee cannot contend that the charge memo has been issued belatedly. An employee cannot blow hot and cold contending at one stage that criminal and departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded with and later, after the culmination of criminal proceedings, cannot take a stand that there has been a delay of 10 years in issuance of charge memo and that the Management is barred from proceeding with the enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 636 has clearly laid down a dictum that in case trial in a criminal case is not completed within a period of one year, there is no hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 30.09.2021 in W.A. No. 1988 of 2021 (The Additional Director General of Police (L&O) vs. O. Baskaran to which one of us (SVNJ) was a party. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 30.09.2021 in W.A. No. 1988 of 2021 (The Additional Director General of Police (L&O) vs. O. Baskaran to which one of us (SVNJ) was a party. But, in the present case on hand, the appellants have preferred to wait for the conclusion of criminal proceedings, which has clearly ended in acquittal. We are not inclined to go into the question whether it was an honourable acquittal or an acquittal based on benefit of doubt. However, the respondent herein has taken part in the departmental proceedings after the Criminal Court decided that he is not guilty of the charges and was acquitted. 6. The narrow issue in this writ appeal is whether the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 27.01.2020, has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer by giving reasons or not. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is extracted hereunder: OTHERS LANGUAGE 7. A reading of the aforesaid extract would make it very clear that it is only narration of facts and there is no reason given for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Though the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even if the order dated 27.01.2020 is going to be interfered with, the authority concerned may be given an opportunity to give detailed reasons for disagreement and thereafter, call for an explanation from the employee, we are not here, on the administrative side, to give more opportunities to the appellants herein to correct the mistake committed by them. We reiterate that the extract mentioned supra is only narration of facts and there are no reasons stated by the Disciplinary Authority for his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , has held thus: “19..........whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 8. Hence, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.