Point of law: standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not based on the rules of evidence and the nature of the evidence before the Inquiry Officer to prove the misconduct would also be different

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent i.e., the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in issuing a charge-sheet, dated 3.7.2020, and the consequential Order in DE No. 07-A/2020, dated 3.10.2020, appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner on charges, which are identical to the criminal case registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as under:

(a) The petitioner herein was appointed as Ameen/Field Assistant on compassionate grounds by an Order, dated 3.3.2014, and he was posted at Chodavaram. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bheemili, where, he joined on 14.7.2014. Subsequently, he was again transferred and posted at Visakhapatnam, vide Order, dated 1.6.2018. He was entrusted with the work of preparation of warrants, notices and process relating to IVth and Vlth Additional Senior Civil Judges Court, Visakhapatnam.

(b) While things stood thus, one A. Satyanarayana, instituted a Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,75,000/- in OS No. 396 of 2013 before the Court of VT Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. After the suit was decreed, the plaintiff filed EA No. 160 of 2018 in EP No. 21 of 2015, for attachment of movables belonging to Judgment Debtor. An Order came to be passed in the E.A. attaching the movables available in the shop of the Judgment Debtor.

(c) It is averred that, on 15.10.2019, the petitioner alongwith R. Vijay Mohan Kumar, Field Assistant, went to the shop of the Judgment Debtor with Movable Attachment Warrant and found a boy sitting in the shop. On questioning about the Judgment Debtor, they were informed that the Judgment Debtor is his mother and accordingly called her over phone. Ten minutes later, she arrived. When the petitioner explained about the attachment order, she resisted the same and requested some time to settle the matter with the Decree Holder. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have left the place informing that he will come back after couple of days.

(d) Later, the Judgment Debtor is said to have lodged a report with A.C.B., wherein, she alleged that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as bribe for granting 10 days time in serving the notice with delay. Pursuant thereto, a trap was arranged and thereafter, the petitioner was caught while accepting the bribe and later produced before the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases, Visakhapatnam, on 20.10.2019, and remanded to judicial custody.

(e) Basing on remand, the 2nd respondent issued orders in PR No. 458-A/2019, dated 22.10.2019, placing the petitioner under suspension and thereafter, proceedings came to be issued appointing II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, as Enquiry Officer to conduct the preliminary enquiry and submit his report, which was submitted on 7.2.2020, opining that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report, Articles of charges were framed on 3.7.2020, mentioning the list of witnesses and the documents on which regular enquiry would be conducted. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, which he has done on 20.8.2020, denying the charges.

(f) It is now pleaded that, as the allegations in both the proceedings are one and the same and if the petitioner discloses his defense before the Enquiry Officer, the same would prejudice him in the criminal case. But, without considering the said explanation, the authorities proceeded further.

(g) These actions are sought to be challenged, mainly on the ground that as the allegations in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case being one and the same, the departmental proceedings shall be stayed till the completion of criminal case.

3. A counter came to be filed on behalf of 2nd respondent d