Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically preclude departmental action, and the departmental authorities must independently assess the evidence and consider the time-lag before proceeding with disciplinary action.

Raj an, J.

The petitioner along with four others were charge sheeted by the Vigilance Department under Ss.5(1)(c) and (d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Ss.120-6,409,468,471 and 477-A of IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused criminally conspired to misappropriate Government funds, created with intention to cheat, fabrication of false certificats of work towards charge for pulling out seed lings from Social Forestry Nurseries and by using such forged vouchers as genuine and falsifying the accounts and by committing criminal breach of trust, misappropriated Government money. By Ext. P-2 judgment, the petitioner and others were acquitted. In Exhibit P-2 judgment the Criminal Court came to the following conclusion:

",Therefore, this is a case where the prosecution was not able to prove that the accused criminally conspired together and the vouchers relied on by them are forged or that they have used those forged vouchers and falsified the accounts or by committing criminal breach of trust misappropriated Government funds".

On the above findings the court held that the prosecution was not able to prove any of the charges levelled against all or any of the accused.

2. Thereafter, the second respondent issued Ext. P-1 memo of charges along with statement of allegations. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:

"Misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs. 69,564/76 by making false records and thereby cheated Government derelicted in discharging his official duties honestly and faithfully"

Sri. P.K. Asokan, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (1) After the Criminal Court acquitted the accused on merit, no disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner on the same set of facts and evidence; and (2) Initiating disciplinary proceedings long after the occufrance is arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. The delinquent officers have always raised the question of competency of the Government to take disciplinary action after the pronouncement of the Criminal Court acquitting the accused, before this court as well as before the apex court. The earliest and the most important decision in this respect is that of Mathew, J. (as he then was) in Spadigam v. State of Kerala (1970 KLT 1047). Analysing the whole gamut of the question of issue estoppel Justice Mathew dealt with the difference between the standards of proof in a criminal case and in a civil case, and also its applicability to the domestic enquiries as follows:

"The object of criminal law and its enforcement through criminal proceeding is different from that of disciplinary proceeding. A criminal proceeding is mainly intended to punish persons who have broken "the Kings's peace", and thus to show the indignation of the community to criminals whereas disciplinary proceeding is intended to maintain the purity and efficiency of public service. Then again, in a criminal trial, the only evidence admissible is that which is made admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act. A tribunal conducting an enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding is not bound by the strict rules of evidence. Any material which has a logically probative value to prove or disprove the facts in issue is relevant and admissible".

Lastly, the learned judge concluded the above discussion with the following observations:

"Therefore, in a disciplinary proceeding, a person can be found guilty of a charge on materials which are inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial. A judgment of acquittal by a criminal court is inadmissible in a civil suit based on the same cause of action, except for the very limited purpose mentioned in S.43 of the Evidence Act. Just as a civil court must independently of the decision of the criminal court investigated facts and come to its own finding, so also, I think, a tribunal conducting a disciplinary proceeding must investigate the facts and come to its own finding and that without being hampered by