JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order R.Dis.No.226330/AP.2(1)/2012, dated 19.10.2014, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential orders passed by 3rd respondent in D.O.No. 38/2015-C-No.P1/PR.62/2011, dated 09.01.2015 and C.No.P1/PR.62/2011-D.O.No.643/2015, dated 09.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to treat the suspension period as "duty period", refund the amount of Rs.2,833/- recovered as repair charges of the van and grant all the service and monetary benefits.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order R. Dis. No. 226330 / AP. 2(1)/2012, dated 19.10.2014, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential orders passed by 3rd respondent in D.O.No.38/2015-C-No. P1 / PR. 62 / 2011, dated 09.01.2015 and C.No.P1/PR.62/2011-D.O.No.643/2015, dated 09.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to treat the suspension period as "duty period", refund the amount of Rs.2,833/- recovered as repair charges of the van and grant all the service and monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited through Uniform Services Recruitment Board as Police Constable on 01.12.2003. After 9 months training, he was posted as Constable in T.S.P. VII Battalion, Rajapalayam. Then, transferred to Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai. On 20.04.2011, at about 11:50 AM, the petitioner was driving the Police Van No.TN 72 G 0762, for conveyance of prisoners from Central Prison Palayamkottai to Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor. When the van was about to move from four way Highway to the left side service road leading to Valliyoor, Tanker Lorry moving before the petitioners vehicle on four way Highway also signaled for left turn and turned to the left side service road leading to Valliyoor but the Tanker Lorry suddenly changed its direction and turned right and went to the four lane Highway road. In order to avoid hitting the lorry, the petitioner turned the vehicle to right and the vehicle climbed up on the right side median and stopped. The remanded prisoner, namely Anandha Kumar, who was sitting near the window in the van had a simple injury by hitting on the side window. In order to avoid hitting the lorry, the petitioner turned the vehicle to right and the vehicle climbed up on the right side median and stopped. The remanded prisoner, namely Anandha Kumar, who was sitting near the window in the van had a simple injury by hitting on the side window. The Valliyoor Police registered FIR in Crime No.313 of 2011 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and the case in STC No. 3475 of 20111 is still pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor. The third respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 21.04.2011 and then revoked the suspension on 29.04.2011. 3. The third respondent initiated departmental proceedings and the charge memo was issued in P.R.No.62 of 2011, under Rule 3(b) for rash driving causing damage to vehicle and hurt to one remand prisoner. The petitioner objected to the departmental action on the ground of parallel proceedings for the same set of charge, since criminal case is pending. The third respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was conducted, wherein 16 prosecution witnesses and 29 documents from July 2011-2012 were marked. The contention of the petitioner, one Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Rajagopal, who was in the van at the time of incident submitted a written statement, dated 10.05.2011, stating that the petitioner did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and has confirmed in the cross examination on 27.07.2011. The prosecution witnesses Nos.4 to 13 did not make any statement alleging rash and careless driving. Out of nearly 20 persons travelled in the vehicle, only one remand prisoner got small injury but the remand prisoner was not included in the list of witness, so as to confirm whether he got injury due to rash driving or due to his sleeping while travelling in the Van. The motor Vehicle Inspector, Valliyoor reported that he inspected the vehicle at 12:40 P.M. on 21.04.2011, at RTO Office. He has given vehicle inspection report but, according to RTI information received on 09.12.2011, vehicle was taken from Valliyoor Police Station on 21.04.2011 at 06:00 A.M. and brought to Palayamkottai AR and the Van was not taken to Valliyoor RTO's Office on 21.04.2011. The motor vehicle Inspector has given a false certificate on the damages of vehicle without actually inspecting the Van. The motor vehicle Inspector has given a false certificate on the damages of vehicle without actually inspecting the Van. The Enquiry Officer failed to note the fact and the statement made by the witness but concluded the charges are proved. The petitioner submitted written explanation within 10 days, after receiving the enquiry report. 4. The contention of the petitioner the departmental witness did not give any statement against the petitioner in criminal proceedings whereas, the statements of departmental witness was given before the Enquiry Officer, who had been produced by misusing power and position of the superior Police Officer. Therefore, the petitioner requested to defer the proceedings until the criminal case but the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned punishment order, dated 11.07.2012 and imposed a punishment of postponing of increment for 3 years which would postpone his future increments, without any prejudice to the criminal case in Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has mala fide, has included some other allegations in the punishment order, which has not been found in the charge memo. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he refused to receive the enquiry minutes for which the petitioner states he was not available at that time, when the Magistrate visited but the same was affixed in the door. 5. The next allegation is that the petitioner did not submit any further representations but the petitioner submitted that he sought time for submission of written explanation but the same was refused. The allegation that the petitioner did not appear for personal hearing, but the petitioner submitted that he did not sought for personal hearing at all and hence there is no question of not appearing for personal hearing. Another punishment, recovery of the sum of Rs.2833/- was imposed, in spite of, the vehicle damage could be compensated by the insurance company. Aggrieved over the punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was rejected on the ground of delay on 10.10.2012. A review petition was filed before the Director General of Police on 21.11.2012 and the said petition was considered and an order, dated 19.11.2014, was passed, reducing the punishment as postponing of increment for one year without cumulative effect and consequently, the third respondent passed the impugned order on 09.01.2015, modifying the punishment. A review petition was filed before the Director General of Police on 21.11.2012 and the said petition was considered and an order, dated 19.11.2014, was passed, reducing the punishment as postponing of increment for one year without cumulative effect and consequently, the third respondent passed the impugned order on 09.01.2015, modifying the punishment. Another order in P.R.62 of 2011 in D.O.No.643 of 2015, was passed on 09.06.2015 postponing the petitioner increment on 01.10.2012 for one year without cumulative effect. The contention of the petitioner for the incident, he has been punished 7 times and he was not paid increment from 2010 onwards and he is receiving the same amount of Rs. 9130/-. Because of the disciplinary proceedings, he could not get No Objection Certificate to apply for direct SI recruitment. Then, the respondents did not give any leave and he was forced not to rest even during medical leave. Aggrieved over all these allegations, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. 6. The third respondent have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner admitted that he overtook a speeding petroleum tanker lorry, who lost his control over the vehicle and dashed against the concrete divider in the service road. In this incident, the under trial prisoner and other persons inside the vehicle got simple injury and the vehicle was also damaged. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The remand prisoner was admitted in the hospital for treatment and they could not produce him before the Magistrate for seeking remand extension. The case was registered in Valliyoor Police Station and disciplinary proceedings was also initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has held the charges are proved, after perusing the statement of the prosecution witness No.16 and documents No.29. Thereafter, the punishment was imposed. His appeal was rejected as time barred and in his review petition before the Director General of Police, the punishment was modified. Now, the petitioner has moved the Writ Petition. 7. The contention of the respondents are that there is no bar to initiate departmental proceedings, when a criminal case is pending. The petitioner did not submit a written explanation even after sufficient time was given to him. The contention of the petitioner that he was waiting for the disposal of the criminal case pending in the Court is not acceptable. The contention of the respondents are that there is no bar to initiate departmental proceedings, when a criminal case is pending. The petitioner did not submit a written explanation even after sufficient time was given to him. The contention of the petitioner that he was waiting for the disposal of the criminal case pending in the Court is not acceptable. The petitioner did not cooperate in the departmental proceedings and his activities had been discussed in the final order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is also incorrect to state that for the same allegations the petitioner was imposed with punishment. The accident vehicle was not insured and the vehicle damage charges were recovered from the petitioner is not correct, since the Government vehicle need not be insured. The petitioner was dealt on the charge of rash and negligent driving and the petitioner was dealt leniently by the disciplinary authority and the punishment was modified. Therefore, the RTI information cannot be relied on. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Valliyoor inspected the vehicle on 21.04.2011 itself and submitted an assessment regarding the damages of the vehicle. Hence the respondents prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.52,470/- but in the memorandum, dated 17.11.2015, it is stated as Rs.52,540/-. It is due to over sight but the actual amount of Rs.52,470/- was not given by the fourth respondent. 9. Heard Mr.P.Krishnasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 10. The contention of the petitioner was that he did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent way and the Sub Inspector of Police namely, Rajagopal had clearly deposed that the petitioner did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent way but, the Enquiry Officer declined to consider the said evidence and no reason was adduced. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner’s contention cannot be accepted because the respondents produced 24 documents and 16 witnesses, but the petitioner did not come forward to participate in the enquiry proceedings and has not cross examined or perused the documents before the Enquiry Officer and hence the contention of the said Raja Gopal cannot be entertained. The respondents further contended that the said Raja Gopal was not produced before the Enquiry Officer. The respondents further contended that the said Raja Gopal was not produced before the Enquiry Officer. Even for the argument sake, if the said Raja Gopal deposed and given such statements in the enquiry proceedings, the fact remains that there was an accident and the remand prisoner was injured and some of the Police officials travelling in the vehicle were also injured. The contention of the petitioner was considered by the review authority and the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years was modified as one year that too without cumulative effect. 11. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the criminal proceedings would end up in his favour and the respondents cannot proceed with the domestic enquiry. This plea is settled in number of cases, wherein it is stated that the department enquiry is separate proceeding and the criminal proceeding are separate proceeding and both can go on simultaneously. Hence this Court reject the contention of the petitioner. 12. The next contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have imposed multiple punishments. This plea cannot be entertained, since the suspension and recovery of amount are all consequential and cannot be stated as an independent punishment. However, the petitioner is entitled to regularize the suspension period. 13. The contention of the petitioner that because of the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner could not participate in the direct recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police. This Court is of the considered opinion since there is no check period, after the punishment period is over, the petitioner is entitled to “No Objection Certificate”. 14. Therefore, this Court is passing the following order: a) The respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period as duty period. b) The respondents are directed to give No Objection Certificate for participating in the direct recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police. c) As far as the punishment for stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is concerned, the same is not interfered with. d) As far as the recovery of Rs.2833/- is concerned since the government vehicle are not insured, the petitioner is liable to pay the repair charges and therefore the amount of Rs.2833/- shall be recovered in easy installments. e) As far as the monetary benefits is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider and pass an order for the monetary benefits. 15. e) As far as the monetary benefits is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider and pass an order for the monetary benefits. 15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.