Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     2497       OF      2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.23034/2007)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.                 Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

E. RANGACHARI     Respondent(s)

           O     R     D     E     R   

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and  

order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the High  

Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition  

No.11925 of 2004 by which the High Court has upheld  

the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative  

Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.  

3. The respondent joined service as a Junior  

Assistant on 14.09.1973. Subsequently, he was  

promoted to the post of Assistant and in the year  

1986 he was promoted to the post of Sub Registrar.  

While working as Sub Registrar, on the allegation of

Page 2

2

demand and accepting bribe, he was trapped and  

arrested in the year 1997 and was subsequently  

released. During the period of arrest, the  

respondent was placed under suspension and the  

suspension was subsequently revoked by the Tamil  

Nadu Administrative Tribunal.  

4. Since the respondent was under suspension,  

his name was not included in the panel for the post  

of District Registrar for the year 1998-99.  

Aggrieved by this non-inclusion, he filed O.A.  

before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which  

was allowed. The State challenged the order of the  

Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal before the High  

Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court  

upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu  

Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the writ  

petition.  

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the  

parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondent does not dispute that a criminal case is  

pending against the respondent and it is at the  

final stage of hearing. Admittedly, the charge-sheet

Page 3

3

was filed long back and the case has proceeded  

further. The respondent has now superannuated from  

service.

6. In the backdrop of the facts stated above,  

the impugned judgment as also the judgment of the  

Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal cannot be  

sustained. Both these judgments are, therefore, set  

aside. In case the respondent is acquitted in the  

criminal case, he would be entitled to all the  

reliefs according to the rules. With these  

observations and direction this appeal is allowed  

and disposed of.   

7. The parties are directed to bear their  

respective costs.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi; February 22, 2012.