1. Disciplinary proceedings for possessing disproportionate assets and acquiring properties without permission — Criminal acquittal for disproportionate assets — Challenge to subsequent disciplinary proceedings under conduct rules. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 977
1997(7) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal & G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. -Appellants
versus
C. Muralidhar -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4911 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23943 of 1996)
Decided on 22-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair and C. Balasubramanian, Advocates.
For the Respondent : L. Nageshwara Rao, G.R.K. Prasad, V.S. Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocates.
Important Points
Acquittal in a criminal case for disproportionate assets and a subsequent order to drop disciplinary proceedings based on that acquittal do not preclude disciplinary action for separate violations of service conduct rules, such as acquiring assets without prior government permission.
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.19(2), R.20(4)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.5(2)
SERVICE LAW: .
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.5(2)
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Charge memo related to holding of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and some charges related to having acquired assets without permission of the department in violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules-Respondent was acquitted of charges u/s 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in criminal prosecution-Tribunal held that departmental enquiry could not be held for very same charge of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources-Govt. passed an order to drop proceedings but confined its application to proceedings so for they related to charge of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources-Said order could not be construed as containing direction that disciplinary proceedings in respect of other charges were also dropped-No infirmity in charge-memo issued in respect of charges involving violation of Rules in acquiring or disposing properties without permission of the Government or department. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a government order dropping disciplinary action following a criminal acquittal for disproportionate assets bars proceedings for acquiring properties without departmental permission. (Para 4 )
3. The government order dropping proceedings based on a criminal acquittal for disproportionate assets is confined to that specific charge and does not extend to conduct rule violations. (Para 6 )
4. Acquittal in a criminal case for disproportionate assets does not preclude disciplinary proceedings for separate charges of acquiring properties without departmental permission under conduct rules. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed, Tribunal's judgment set aside, and disciplinary proceedings for acquiring properties without permission ordered to be concluded expeditiously. (Para 7 )
6. Does an acquittal in a criminal case for disproportionate assets bar all related disciplinary proceedings?
No. While it bars proceedings for the specific charge of possessing disproportionate assets, it does not preclude proceedings for other charges, such as acquiring or disposing of properties without departmental permission under conduct rules. (Para 6 )
7. Does the omission of a Tribunal's judgment in a government order dropping proceedings affect the scope of that order?
No. The scope of the government order is determined by its content and the specific criminal acquittal it references, even if a related Tribunal judgment is not explicitly mentioned. (Para 6 )
8. Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated for conduct rule violations if a previous proceeding for disproportionate assets was dropped?
Yes, if the charges are distinct. Acquiring or disposing of properties without departmental permission is a separate violation of conduct rules from the charge of possessing disproportionate assets. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, J.-Special leave granted.
2. C. Muralidhar, the respondent herein, was employed as Motor Vehicle Inspector with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In 1987 a criminal case (C.C. No. 8 of 1987) was filed against him wherein he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Disciplinary proceedings of a charge memo dated January 21, 1988 issued by the Enquiry Officer under Rule 19(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, Some of the charges in the said charge memo related to holding of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income while some charges related to his having acquired the assets without permission of the department in violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The respondent filed R.P. No. 3714 of 1989 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred the Tribunal ) wherein he assailed the validity of the charge memo dated January 21, 1988 on the ground that in view of the pendency of the criminal case wherein he was being prosecuted on the charge of possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for the same charge was illegal. During the pendency of the said petition before the Tribunal the Special Judge of SPE and ACB cases, Nellore, by his judgment dated April 28, 1994, acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income. The aforesaid decision in the criminal case was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when R.P. No. 3714 of 1989 was taken up. The Tribunal, while disposing or the said petition on March 1, 1995, observed that further information was, not made available to the Tribunal regarding the criminal case and directed that if the criminal case has already been disposed of and the judgment has become final so far as the issue pertaining to the disproportionate assets is concerned, the departmental enquiry cannot be held for the very same charge of possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The Tribunal was, however, of the view that other charges in departmental proceedings that the respondent acquired the assets without permission of the department are not part of the charge in the criminal case before the Special Judge and the Tribunal, therefore, directed that it would be open to the authorities to proceed with the charges regarding the acquisition and disposing of properties without permission of the Government or the department or of other delinquencies as required under the Government Servant s Conduct Rules. After taking note of the judgment of Special Judge dated April 28, 1994 in the criminal case filed against the respondent, the Government or Andhra Pradesh passed an order, G.O. Ms. No 74 dated April 24, 1995, whereby it was decided :-
"The Government after careful examination of the matter, have decided that further action in the criminal case of allegation of disproportionate assets against Sri C. Muralidhar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, be dropped, since he was acquitted by the ACB Court and found not guilty of the allegation."
3. In the said order there is no reference to the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 1, 1995 in R.P. No. 3714 of 1989.
4. On February 20, 1996 a fresh charge memo. (No. 50236/XI/83) was issued to the respondent under Rule 20(4) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The said charge memo related to violation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for acquiring and disposing of properties without informing and taking permission from the Government for the same. The respondent filed another petition (O.A. No. 2250 of 1996) before the Tribunal challenging the validity of the s
