Madras High CourtWP/44937/2025disposed of with direction

K.Karpagam v. The Revemie Divisional Officer

2025-12-02Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP No. 50121 OF 2025 K.Karpagam Petitioner(s) Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Udhagamandamalm, The Nilgiris District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER; This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in NA.KA. No.RDOUDG/ 178/ 2024-A-1 date 30.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondent to confer all the consequential benefits on the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondent:

Mr.R.U.Dinesh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

Seeking to quash the order passed by the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as VAO on 02.03.2019 and her service was regularised. Based on the complaint lodged by one Jayaganesh, a trap was set and the petitioner was caught red-handed and accepted Rs.6000/- for mutation of revenue records. Therefore, the Vigilance

and Anti Corruption Department has registered a criminal case against against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.04.2024. On 30.06.2025, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent ought to have waited to initiate departmental proceedings till the criminal case is disposed that if the allegations are one and the same, in the criminal case and in the department proceedings, it is always desirable to defer the departmental proceedings till the criminal case is over and consequently, the impugned charge memo is liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel further submitted that this Court may permit the petitioner to take all her defence before the departmental enquiry. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as VAO. According to the respondent, the petitioner has demanded bribe for Rs.6000/- from the complainant for mutation of revenue records, for which, a trap was set and the petitioner was caught while receiving the amount from the complainant, for which, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a criminal case is going

on. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was issued charge memo for the departmental enquiry. In this background, the petitioner seeks defer the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case. A similar issue was settled by this Court in case of ................................ wherein it has held that there is no bar for the respondent to proceed the departmental enquiry mere pendency of the criminal case. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioner to canvass all the points before the departmental enquiry.

11. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Revemie Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Udhagamandamalm, The Nilgiris District.

M.DHANDAPANI J.

02-12-2025