Point of law: Ordinarily, the question as to whether acquittal in a criminal case will be conclusive in regard to the order of punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer in a departmental proceeding is a matter which will again depend upon the fact situation involved in a given case

ORDER :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

(Taken up through video conferencing)

1. Order dated 20.11.2012 in OA No.3537 of 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad, quashing the charge memo and the ensuing departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent employee on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case on self same charges is under challenge.

2. Respondent employee was working as a Police Constable, Bathalapalli, Anantapur, at the relevant time. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the following imputation:

“Sri T. Fakruddin, S/o. Meera Saheb, aged 60 yrs., Retd. Teacher, D.No.4/253, 3rd Road, Anantapur came to Anantapur III Town PS. On 07.03.2010 at 12 noon and preferred a report stating that D.S. Maruthi Prasad S/o. Lakshmaiah, PC 1150 of Bathalapalli PS has abducted his daughter Kum. T. Parven Bhanu, aged 20 yrs., on his motor cycle on 06.03.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. from their house and requested to take necessary action. In this connection a case in Cr.No.50/2010 u/s.366 IPC was registered against said PC 1150 in Anantapur III Town PS and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the abducted girl Kum. Parveen Bhanu returned to her house on 25.03.2010 and subsequently when she was examined, she stated that PC 1150 D.S. Maruthi Prasad has been harassing her since a long time and was also threatening her to love him. Further she stated that on 06.03.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. while she was at her house, the said Maruthi Prasad came to her on a motor cycle, threatened her on the point of a knife and forcibly abducted her on his motor cycle, detained her in a house for all these days and finally left her near PTC, Anantapur at about 11.00 a.m. on 25.03.2010, threatening her to withdraw the case against him. During further course of investigation, the accused D.S. Maruthi Prasad, PC 1150 of Bathalapalli PS was arrested on 29.03.2010 at 10.15 a.m. at RTC Bus stand.”

3. Over the self same accusation, a criminal case in Crime No.50 of 2020 was registered against the delinquent employee by the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Anantapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 341 and 506 IPC and the case was numbered as SC No.422 of 2010 before the learned Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur. In the sessions case, both T. Fakruddin and the victim, Parveen Bhanu were examined but they did not support the prosecution case and the delinquent employee was honourably acquitted.

4. In the meantime, the employee had been declared as a deserter. He assailed the proceedings by filing OA No.5494 of 2010, whereupon the Tribunal by order dated 19.10.2010 partly allowed the application and directed the department to conduct a regular enquiry on the allegation of unauthorized absence of the applicant and pass orders on merits. However, the department did not initiate any enquiry on the issue of unauthorized absence.

5. On the other hand, charge memo was issued upon the employee in the impugned departmental proceedings relating to the factum of abduction of Kum. Parveen Bhanu, which was the subject matter of the aforesaid criminal case. As the employee had been acquitted, he approached the tribunal for quashing the charge memo which was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the department filed the present writ petition.

6. Sri Aswarthnarayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings operate in different fields and standard of proof in both the proceedings are different. Hence, the Tribunal erred in quashing the charge memo merely on the acquittal of the delinquent employee. In support of his contention, he relied upon Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 367.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee submits that the charge in both the ca