The distinction between the standards of proof in disciplinary and criminal proceedings is critical; mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically negate findings in disciplinary actions based on preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The applicant in O.A. No.2162 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. While working as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) at the Kollam East Police station, he was arrayed in Crime No.687 of 2011 of Kollam East Police station registered under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was placed under suspension, and an oral enquiry was ordered. After oral enquiry, Annexure AI PR minutes was submitted by the enquiry officer, who found the petitioner to be at fault. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service vide Annexure A3 order dated 07.08.2012 of the 2^nd respondent. Annexure A4 appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority through Annexure A5 order dated 20.06.2013. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court as per the judgment dated 31.10.2017, after a full trial. The petitioner submitted Annexure A7 review petition before the 1^st respondent, which was directed to be decided by the Tribunal, vide order dated 24.10.2018 in O.A.No.1956 of 2018. The 1^st respondent issued Annexure A8 Government Order dated 22.03.2019, rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Tribunal, which pronounced Annexure A9 order dated 26.05.2022 in O.A.No.1729 of 2019, whereby Annexure A8 Government Order was set aside, and the Government was directed to consider the review petition afresh with particular attention to the contentions of the petitioner. Upon reconsideration, the 1^st respondent has now issued Annexure A10 order dated 05.07.2023, rejecting the review petition of the petitioner. The reasons stated in Annexure A10 are illegal and liable to be set aside in judicial review. Rule 10 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules and Section 101 (8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 are mandatory provisions and cannot be ignored by any authority. With these pleadings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Call for the records leading up to Annexure A10 and quash it.

2. Call for the records leading up to annexures A3 and A5, and quash them.

3. Declare that the removal of the applicant from service is illegal.

4. Direct the respondents to regularise the period from 07.08.2012 to 30.05.2016 wherein the applicant was kept out of service, as duty for all purposes, and grant notional promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the date of his eligibility.

5. Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including seniority, salary arrears, pension, commutation of pension, DCRG, earned leave surrender etc. within a firm time limit.

6. Direct the 6^th respondent to authorise payment of the terminal benefits due to the applicant within a firm time limit.”

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 24.05.2024 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, a reply s