Important point
Where an employee is found guilty of mis-appropriating the funds of Civil Supplies Corporation, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.

Headnote:Service Law—Dismissal from Service—Nature of proof required in a departmental enquiry—Effect of judgment of acquittal in criminal proceedings—Order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority was based on dispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of entirety of facts and evidence on record Malpractices and mis-appropriation indulged in by respondent employee in collusion with the other members of the staff causing huge loss to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation—Prosecution proceedings launched against respondent were in respect of offences punishable u/ss 409 and 477-A, IPC—Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings in Court of criminal law are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other—Whether High Court erred in law in holding that acquittal of respondent by Criminal Court ought to have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while dismissing respondent from service—(Yes)—High Court also gravely erred in law by ignoring to appreciate that punishment of dismissal of respondent from service was the most appropriate punishment in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
       Held : In our view, the single Judge has mis-directed herself in reaching the erroneous conclusion that both the criminal case in the Court of C.J.M. and the departmental enquiry were based on identical facts and charges. She has lost sight of the fact that the criminal case instituted against the respondent in the Court of C.J.M. was in respect of the offences under Section 409 IPC (Criminal breach of trust) and falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477A IPC whereas the respondent herein was charged in the departmental enquiry for her failure to maintain prescribed records for issue of a stock and for swindling the Corporation in collusion with the other members of the staff through mis-appropriation of stock and cash of the Corporation thereby causing huge loss to the Corporation to the tune of more than Rs. 9.00 lacs. Similarly, the learned single Judge was patently misconceived in reaching the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. clinched issue before the departmental enquiry, while losing sight of the well settled law that the scope of criminal proceedings in the Court of criminal law and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct and exclusive and independent. The learned single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings and the departmental disciplinary actions are not the same. We have perused the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.06.1994 upholding the order of dismissal with dispassionate judicial mind. In our opinion, both the orders aforementioned are exhaustive in details, impeccable on facts and armed with irrefutable reasons in support of the conclusions. (Paras 19 to 23)
       In our opinion, both the learned single Judge and the learned appellate Judges of the High Court failed to consider and appreciate dispassionately and judicially the Corporation’s most emphatically pronounced plea that it would be virtually impossible for them to reinstate the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of mis-appropriation and other malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with the distribution of essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu whose dismissal from service has been upheld by the appellate authority vide its very detailed, well-considered and well-reasoned verdict and in whose integrity, honestly and trustworthiness the Corporation have lost their faith completely and absolutely. (Para 25)
       The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was based on dispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of the entirety of facts and evidence on record relating to the malpractices and mis-appropriation indulged in by the respondent in collusion with the other members of the staff causing thereby huge loss to the Corporation. The scope of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings in a Court of Criminal law are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. The prosecution proceedings launched against the respondent herein were in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A I.P.C., whereas the Departmental Proceedings as initiated against her were in respect of the charges of misappropriation and other fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into accounts the stock received showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc. Thus, the respondent herein was proceeded against for quite different charges and on different sets of facts before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the one hand, and before the Departmental Enquiry on the other. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not only impeccable on facts, tenable on law but also unambiguously supported by unassailable reasons in support of their conclusions. Thus the unchargeable acquisition by the learned single Judge and of the learned Judges of the appellate bench that the order of the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority suffer from total non-application of mind is patently devoid of any substance of truth and law. (Paras 31 to 33)
       In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, the conclusion of the learned single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal. (Para 35)

Judgment

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—The present appeal was preferred against the final judgment and order dated 19.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Writ Appeal No. 2592 of 2001 dismissing the same.

Factual Background :

2. The factual background, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows :-

The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (in short the “Corporation”) is constituted to fulfil its chief objective of distributing essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu and has opened a number of godowns throughout the State to achieve the said objective.

3. The respondent-herein - K. Meerabai was appointed as a Bill Clerk on 30.11.1974 in the service of the Corporation and was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 31.12.1980. The respondent was posted as Junior Assistant in the Godown situated at Mint Street, Chennai on 05.01.1981 which post she held till 28.01.1983 when she was suspended vide order dated 28.01.1983 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her and the other members of the Mint Godown staff in respect of mis-appropriation of the Corporation’s stock and money in the sum of Rs. 9,86,980.56 committed by her in collusion with the other members of the staff through fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into account the stocks received by them, showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc.

4. In 1983, a criminal complaint was filed by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the respondent herein and other members of the staff of the Mint Godown for offences under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. The said case was registered as crime case No. 14 of 1983 in calendar case No. 5964 to 5967 of 1983.

5. Vide charge memo dated 16.02.1984, the Disciplinary authority levelled against the respondent herein as well as against four other members of the Staff of the Mint Godown, the following charges:-

CHARGES:

(i) That as staff of the Mint (Godown) has failed to maintain the prescribed records for the issue of stocks from the Godown and neglected his primary duty.

(ii) That he/she neglected his/her primary duty as the staff of the Mint Godown and issued the stocks from the Godown in a highly irresponsible and objectionable manner to the ADS, Mint without insisting for the proper acknowledgement from persons responsible and thus indulged in the fraudulent practices and swindled the corporation money in connivance with the ADS staff.

(iii) That he/she failed to safeguard the Corporation stock and property and acted in an irresponsible manner by having direct collusion with the ADS Mint staff and swallowed the Corporation accounts and money for their personal benefits.

(iv) That he/she proved himself to be an irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy employee of the Corporation.

6. Meanwhile, on 17.02.1984, the respondent had moved the High Court by filing writ petition No. 1337 of 1984 to quash the order of suspension dated 28.01.1983. She also moved W.M.P.No. 2084 of 1984 praying for stay of the operation of the order of suspension. By order dated 17.02.1984, the learned single Judge of the High Court restored the service of the respondent herein with payment of full salary subject to deduction of the subsistence allowance already paid to her.

7. Meanwhile, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against the respondent herein in respect of the aforementioned four charges. After a full-fledged enquiry in which the respondent fully participated, the Enquiry Officer, vide his Enquiry Report dated 11.06.1991, recorded his conclusions based on the evidence on record holding (1) that charge No. 1 is not proved; (2) that charge No. 2 is partly proved; (3) that charge No. 3 is not proved and (4) that charge No. 4 is partly proved.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 61

Important pointWhere an employee is found guilty of mis-appropriating the funds of Civil Supplies Corporation, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.

Cases Referred (7)

Important point
Where an employee is found guilty of mis-appropriating the funds of Civil Supplies Corporation, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.