JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Introduction:

An employee, a professor in a private college, along with another colleague, faces allegations of misconduct. The Chairman of the Trust that runs the college initiates disciplinary proceedings against that employee and the other; appoints an inquiry officer and a presenting officer, both advocates by profession; and concludes the disciplinary proceedings. It results in the dismissal of both the employee and his colleague. The employee challenges his removal before a statutory Tribunal. And the Tribunal affirms it. Further aggrieved, the employee files a writ petition before this Court-now admitted and pending before a Division Bench.

2. Pending the appeal before the Tribunal, the employee files a private complaint before a Special Court. He contends that the disciplinary proceedings are false, malicious, and vexatious, attracting Section 3 (1) (p) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980 ("Atrocities Act"). On the Special Court's reference, the police investigate and file a final report: the case not established. So, the employee files a private complaint. The Special Court, then, takes cognisance and issues process.

3. Now, the accused have filed this appeal under Section 14A of the Atrocities Act.

Facts:

4. All the three appellants are the accused in crime No. I-439 of 2017 of Manpad PS., registered based on a complaint forwarded under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C by the special Judge, Kalyan, Mumbai. The appellants have been accused of the offences under sections 465, 467, 468, and 420 of I.P.C., read with Section 3 (1) (p) of the Atrocities Act. After a few statutory and investigative developments, the special Judge, Kalyan, issued process to the appellants under Section 204 of Cr P.C. Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this Court, invoking Section 14A of the Atrocities Act.

5. The First appellant claims to be the Chairman of an Educational Trust. He instituted disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent and another. Then, in August 2011, he appointed the second appellant, an advocate, the inquiry officer; in October 2011, he also appointed the third appellant, again an advocate, the presenting officer.

6. The second respondent ("employee") in this appeal is the complainant; he was a lecturer in the college run by the Trust. Faced with the allegations of misconduct, the employee was suspended from duties on 15th July 2011. After a full-fledged inquiry, on 2nd August 2013, the college management dismissed him from service, mentioning that the allegations against him were proved in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

7. Aggrieved, the employee filed before the University Tribunal a statutory appeal: Appeal No. 23/2013. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 27th January 2016-on merits. Further aggrieved, the employee filed WP No.7885 of 2016. A learned Division Bench of this Court admitted the appeal on 1st December 2016 but has not interfered with the Tribunal's order-as yet.

8. On 9th May 2017 the employee filed a private complaint before the Special Judge, Kalyan, alleging that the appellants have been guilty of the offences under sections 465, 467, 468, and 420, read with Section 34 of I.P.C., as well as Section 3 (1) (p) of the Atrocities Act. On 26th July 2017, the learned Special Judge referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C to the Manpet Police Station, which in turn registered C.R. No. I-439 of 2017, for the same offences as alleged by the employee.

9. The Police investigated the crime and, on 8th November 2017, filed a final report: no offence was made out. As a matter of parallel development, pending the Police investigation into the crime, the appellants, as the accused, secured an anticipatory bail and remained free. In the wake of the Final Report, on 24th of the same month, the learned Special Judge notified the employee about that report. Then, in January 2018, assailing the Final Report, the employee fil