IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which prohibits imposing penalties in departmental proceedings based on the same facts as in a criminal case where the officer has been acquitted. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the limitations on the employer's authority to inquire into the private affairs of a government servant, highlighting privacy rights and societal values.

JUDGMENT :

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.) :

The State has come up in this original petition challenging an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') in an application filed by the respondent herein. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed on the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The respondent, a driver in the Police Department was suspended from service with effect from 21.12.2005 consequent upon the registration of a criminal case against him. He was convicted in the criminal case for offences under Sections 8(1) and (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. He was found distilling arrack along with one lady, namely, Smt.Radha who was first accused in the crime. On an appeal, he was acquitted, granting the benefit of doubt. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on two sets of allegations: firstly, with reference to the criminal offence, and secondly, with reference to the illicit relationship with the first accused, Radha. In the disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty and he was ordered to be removed from the service. Accordingly, he was removed from the service on 11.04.2008. On his acquittal, he moved the authorities to reinstate him in the service. That was considered pursuant to the direction of this Court and the Government rejected the request. The review petition filed by him was also rejected. Thus, he approached this Court in a writ petition and that was transferred to the KAT, on the constitution of the KAT. The Tribunal considered the matter and set aside the order of disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed. This was done taking note of the fact that the respondent has been acquitted in the criminal case by the Appellate Court. It is submitted at the Bar that the acquittal has become final and there is no further challenge on the order of acquittal.

Arguments:

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in allowing the application. According to him, he was not honourably acquitted and he was given the benefit of doubt. Therefore, there is no bar under law in proceeding with the departmental enquiry to find the guilt of the delinquent employee. It is further submitted that he was leading an adulterous life and that itself has brought a bad image to the Police Department. Therefore, independent of the criminal case the second charge as against him is legally sustainable. In that sense, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the departmental proceedings and the penalty imposed. The learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Rajasthan and Others v. Phool Singh (2022 KHC 6884).

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Smt.Lakshmi N.Kaimal, would argue that the departmental proceedings is on the same set of facts as alleged in the criminal case, and therefore, on acquittal the departmental enquiry would come to an end and no action could have been taken against the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 446] and S.Bhaskar Reddy and Another v. Superintendent of Police and Another [(2005) 2 SCC 365]. It is further submitted that under Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short, the 'Police Act'), it is specifically stipulated that a police officer shall not be subjected to the penalties on the basis of the same facts if he has been acquitted in the criminal case. The learned counsel further argued that no court or authority had found that the respondent had an illicit relationship with the lady, namely, Radha who was the first accused in the criminal case and without any proceedings culminating in such finding, it is not open for the Department to conduct an enquiry in the private affairs of the respondent. The learned counsel also placed reliance