K. Baby vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The order keeping the petitioner under suspension without permitting her to retire is challenged in this Writ Petition on account of subsequent events.

THE FACTS:

The petitioner was initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer and she joined the service on 10 April, 1984. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 9 of 2005 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. It was a trap case. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension. The suspension was, subsequently, withdrawn, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 10 December, 2009, in W.P. (MD) No. 12065 of 2009.

The police, after completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam and it was taken on file in Special C.C. No. 2 of 2006. While the trial was in progress, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30 April, 2012. However, the petitioner was not permitted to retire. The first respondent suspended the petitioner from service invoking F.R. 56(1)(C) and retained her in service by not allowing to retire. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

SUBMISSIONS:

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court and as such, there is no question of keeping her under suspension and without permitting her to retire from service. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that with respect to the very same charge, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and the same culminated in passing an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the petitioner is prepared to receive the retirement benefits, taking into account the punishment imposed on her.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment is pending before this Court. According to the learned Government Advocate, in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition, it is not possible to revoke the order of suspension.

DISCUSSION:

The involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the pendency of the trial, made the first respondent to pass the impugned order retaining her in service in accordance with F.R. 56(1)(C). The petitioner is not challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. The request of the petitioner is on account of subsequent developments.

The criminal case registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal by judgment dated 31 May, 2012. Therefore, it is clear that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner as of now. The first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on account of the very same charge. The first respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority. It is true that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment is now pending before this Court.

The petitioner has now given an undertaking that she is prepared to accept the punishment imposed on her, provided her retirement benefits are paid, after withdrawing the order dated 30 April, 2012.

The factual matrix very clearly shows that the petitioner was suspended and retained in service, on account of the pending criminal case. The criminal case ended in acquittal. The disciplinary proceedings also attained finality. This Court has not passed any interim order staying the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, there is no prohibition for the first respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service, taking into account the punishment imposed on her and the acquittal by the Criminal Court. While calculating the benefits payable to the petitioner, necessarily, punishment imposed on her by stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect should also be taken note of by the first respondent.

In the result, the impugned order dated 30 April, 2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

The first respondent is directed to pass orders to permit the petitioner to retire from service, taking into account the disposal of disciplinary proceedings and the related criminal case. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Her retirement benefits should be calculated and paid to her, within the above period, taking into account the punishment, as indicated in paragraph No. 9 of this order.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.