R. Balasubramanian, J:

The first respondent went before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7409 of 1996 challenging the charge memo dated 13.10.1996 served on him. The Tribunal quashed that charge memo. The Government is therefore before this court in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The order in challenge shows that on the same set of facts, the first respondent and another were proceeded with in S.C.NO.92 of 1992 on the file of Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The impugned order also shows that the said case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 16.9.1994. There is no dispute that the said judgment had become final. The Tribunal perusing the copy of the judgment and the contents of the charge memo found that the facts relied upon in the charge memo are the same facts, on which the first respondent was tried before the Special Court and therefore the acquittal by the criminal court cannot be easily lost sight of in deciding as to whether the departmental proceedings should be allowed to commence. On that premises, the Tribunal held