( 1 ) A Division Bench Of this Court consisting of Govinda Bhat, J. (as he then was), and malimath, J. has by its order dated 22/3/1973 referred to a Full Bench the following question :

Whether an order of a criminal Court acquitting the accused on the merit of a case would bar the disciplinary authority from holding him guilty and imposing punishment in disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Mysore (Karnataka) Civil Service (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, on the basis of the same facts and accusations in respect of which he was tried and acquitted by the Criminal Court. "

( 2 ) ON the above question there are earlier decisions of this Court in P. Ekambaram v. The general Manager, M. G. R. T. C. , (1961) Mys. L. J. 1066; Mainuddin Alisab Kazi v. State of mysore, (1964) 1 Mys. L. J. 188 and Rama v. Superintendent of Police, Kolar, A. I. R. 1967 mysore 220.

( 3 ) IN Ekambaram's case a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Somnath Iyer, J. (as he then was), and Kalagate, J. , held that of a civil servant acquitted by a Criminal Court, would bar a disciplinary proceedings in respect of the same charge, Somnath Iyer, J. , observed thus at page 1068 :

"normally if a person holding a civil post is found to have committed an offence punishment under the penal code, he would in the first instance be prosecuted in a Criminal Court for that offence. It may be that it is not always necessary to resort to that course since the disciplinary authority would also have the power to make a departmental enquiry into that charge although it is punishable by a Criminal Court. But if the department in which the petitioner was holding the civil post chooses to have that charge enquired into by the Criminal Court and the Criminal court enquires into it and acquits the civil servant of the charge which had been framed against him it should, in my opinion, be extremely improper for any disciplinary authority to enquire against into that charge and hold him guilty on the very evidence which was produced before the criminal Court and which it disbelieved. To permit that would be to countenance an improper circumvention of the order of acquittal made by a competent Criminal Court. "

( 4 ) THE above decision was followed by Kalagate, J. in Mainuddin Alisab Kazi's case. That was also a case in which the Criminal Court acquitted the accused holding that the evidence was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. His Lordship reiterated the earlier view and observed as follows :

"the question, therefore, is, even though the department has got a right to hold a departmental enquiry, whether it would be right for it to come to a contrary conclusion and circumvent the decision of the Court. In my opinion, if this is permitted, it will shake the confidence of the public in the judiciary and it is neither desirable nor proper for the disciplinary authorities to circumvent decision of the Court and find the accused guilty when on the very same evidence the court has found that it is not sufficient to convict the culprit. "

His Lordship, however, said that it may be permissible for the disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action against the delinquent where the Criminal Court had given the benefit of doubt though it was morally convinced of the guilty of the accused. But where the Court has found the accused not guilty on the evidence before it, his Lordship said that the disciplinary authority should not disregard the decision of the Criminal Court, and start proceedings, and take action against the delinquent.

( 5 ) IN Rama v. Superintendent of Police, Kolar A. I. R. 1967 Mysore 220, the petitioner was a police constable. A case against him had been registered for an offence, although no prosecution in respect of that offence had yet commenced. In the meanwhile disciplinary proceedings were also commenced against him in respect of the same matter. He assailed such disciplinary proceedings on the ground that there was an impe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document