In W.P.No.21625 of 2019-MAD HC- About 1635 corruption cases are pending across State of Tamil Nadu: Madras HC suggests Special & regular Courts to deal with corruption cases on priority basis
Justice S.M. Subramaniam [21-11-2022]

Read Order: V.Annadurai Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, November 30, 2022: Noting the trend of parties in seeking adjournments to achieve their goal in an indirect manner, the Madras High Court has held that practical and pragmatic approach is required to handle corruption cases and if such cases are kept pending for years together, then there is no possibility of controlling the corrupt practices among the Public Servants.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam disposed of the instant petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in proceedings and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle the terminal benefits by fixing annual increments, review, weightage and settlement benefits with 6% interest.

The Single Judge bench directed the respondents to pass final orders in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by following the procedure as contemplated.

The facts of the case were such that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor.  He was promoted to the post of Selection Grade Conductor and thereafter, as Selection Grade Senior Driver. He was allowed to retire from service on May 31, 2018 without any prejudice to the pendency of the criminal case against him. The criminal case was registered in Crime 2003 on October 17, 2003 , filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The grievances of the writ petitioner was that he was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the criminal proceedings, but, the criminal case is pending for the past about 19 years and even charges have not been framed against the writ petitioner and the other accused persons.

The Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings, initially were proceeded and an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry report, the second show cause notice was issued and the Disciplinary Authority had not passed any final orders. 

It was the case of the petitioner that none of the Terminal and Pensionary Benefits were settled and the petitioner retired in the year 2018 and for the past four years, no action was taken by the Authorities even to dispose of the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings, which was almost concluded. 

The Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that there is no delay on the part of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. 

After considering the submissions, the Court stated that it is an unfortunate circumstance, where, the corruption cases are not dealt with by the Competent Authorities within a reasonable period of time. Blame game by the Police Authorities and the Courts would not resolve the issue. Practical and pragmatic approach is required for the purpose of solving these problems and if the corruption cases are kept pending for years together, then, there is no possibility of controlling the corrupt practices among the Public Servants, the Court noted. 

In the present case, the criminal case is pending for the past about 22 years and during the pendency of the criminal case. Terminal and Pensionary Benefits were settled in favour of few employees. Some accused have already died and even now, charges have not been framed, the Bench noted.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that many of the accused persons have already received all the Terminal and Pensionary Benefits, even during the pendency of the criminal trial. This being the factum, this Court was of the opinion that actions are to be initiated by the Competent Authorities of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and equally by the Courts in conducting the trial in a speedy manner.

 In respect of the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the criminal case. Thus, the eligible benefits, as per the Rules, are to be settled in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. “Balanced retirement benefits are to be settled after the disposal of the criminal case and subject to the judgment in the criminal case”, the Court noted. 

The Court thus observed that the respondents were directed to pass final orders in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by following the procedure as contemplated. It was made clear that the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings are independent and therefore, there is no impediment to pass final orders even during the pendency of the criminal case, the Court stated. In view of the above, the writ petition was disposed of.