Acquittal in a criminal case must be considered in related departmental proceedings when based on identical facts.

ORDER :

SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.

This writ petition is filed to call for the record relating to proceedings No.5068/CPR&RD/G3/2015, dated 22.08.2017, of the 2^nd respondent and set aside the said proceedings as well as the proceedings ROC.No.1543/2007-A6 dated 31.01.2011 of the 4^th respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector on 01.09.2021 and later promoted to Junior Assistant on 21.08.2006. He was suspended on 03.01.2008 by the 4^th respondent for misusing house tax and other taxes amounting to Rs.5,57,390/- while working as a Bill Collector at Vinjamur Gram Panchayat. While he was working as such, the 4^th respondent issued charge memo dated 18.06.2007 framing a charge against him that he misused house tax collection and water tax contribution of Rs.5,57,390/-, and directed to submit explanation and the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charge.

3. The order of suspension dated 03.01.2008 was challenged in O.A.No.2273 of 2008. The said O.A. was disposed of on 09.04.2008 directing the respondents to pass final orders in a month, failing which, the petitioner shall be reinstated, and as the respondents could not pass final orders, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 08.08.2008.

4. The Disciplinary Authorities have observed that in the impugned order that the enquiry was conducted ex parte and the 4^th respondent issued final order on 10.06.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 4^th respondent, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.6961 of 2009. On 27-07-2009, the following order is passed:

“The respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry against the applicant by following the procedure, and to take appropriate action depending on the report of the fresh enquiry report, if they choose to do so. In the meanwhile, the impugned order is set aside, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service. With this direction, the O.A.is disposed of.”

5. The 4^th respondent, without following the procedure contemplated under the CCA Rules, has once again issued proceedings of removal vide ROC.No.1543/2007-A6 dated 31.01.2011, against which, the petitioner has preferred appeal on 10.02.2011 before the 2^nd respondent. When the 4^th respondent has initiated enquiry through charge memo dated 18.06.2007, the State filed a criminal case against the petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.67 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri. By its judgment dated 23.11.2015, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner as not guilty of the charge and acquitted him from the charge under Section 409 of IPC.

6. Subsequently, vide an order dated 01.09.2006, O.A.No.2407 of 2015, which was filed to set aside the order of removal dated 31.01.2011 passed by the 4^th respondent, was allowed directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner by duly considering his acquittal in C.C.No.67 of 2011. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has rejected the appeal by proceedings dated 22.08.2017, against which, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Heard Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Tribunal has disposed of the O.A.No.2407 of 2015, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the appeal by duly considering the factum of acquittal of the petitioner in C.C. No. 67 of 2011, dated 23.11.2015, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules. The 2^nd respondent, without considering the judgment rendered in the criminal case, has dismissed the appeal, which contradicts the orders issued in O.A. No.2407 of 2015.

i) The counsel for the petitioner further argues that when the employee is proceeded against simul