Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5472
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
K. Annamalai & Others
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District & Others
W.P.Nos.14729 to 14732 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2009
Decided on : 11-12-2009
For the Petitioners:K. Venkatramani, SC for M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Neelakantan, GA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is different from that in criminal cases, and the initiation of departmental proceedings may not be stayed solely because a criminal case is pending.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Criminal Case - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Sections 408, 471, 35 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the initiation of departmental proceedings while a criminal case is pending. It highlighted the distinction between the standard of proof required in criminal cases and departmental proceedings, as well as the circumstances under which departmental proceedings may be stayed pending a criminal trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were police officers, sought to stay their disciplinary proceedings pending the disposal of criminal cases against them for misappropriation of funds from a cooperative society. The court had previously directed the respondents to consider their representations, and the respondents proceeded with the departmental enquiry despite the pending criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were justified in initiating departmental action while the criminal case was pending, as the allegations about the petitioners' unauthorized absence from duty were not the subject matter of the criminal case. The court emphasized the distinction between the standard of proof required in criminal cases and departmental proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the departmental enquiry should be stayed pending the criminal case against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that departmental proceedings and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously, except when they are based on the same set of facts and evidence. It emphasized that the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is different from that in criminal trials, and the decision in a criminal case does not bind the employer in a departmental proceeding.
Final Decision: All four writ petitions were dismissed, and the court held that there was no need to stay the departmental proceedings pending the criminal case against the petitioners.
The four petitioners have filed the four writ petitions, seeking for a direction to the respondents to keep their disciplinary proceedings, dated 22. 2008 in abeyance pending disposal of the criminal case in C.C.Nos.49 and 50 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Vellore.
2. The first writ petitioner is a Head Constable of Vandavasi North Police Station and is presently under suspension. The second writ petitioner is also a Head Constable attached to Tiruvannamalai East Police Station, who is also under suspension. The third writ petitioner working as a Head Constable in Melchengam Police Station is also under suspension. In the fourth writ petition, the petitioner was a Head Constable at District Armed Reserve, Thiruvannamalai District and he is also under suspension. In all these writ petitions, status quo order was passed on 27. 2009.
3. It is seen from the final report, dated 111. 2006 that the petitioners, who are the members of Thiruvannamalai District Police Department Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, being office bearers, have misappropriated several amounts. Therefore, they were charged under Sections 408 and 471 read with Section 35 IPC. Subsequently, the petitioners were given charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the charge memo, it was stated that the petitioners were guilty of falsifying records and after obtaining cheques from the society, they encashed the same. Even while they were on duty, disregarding the office work, they went to the District Co-operative Society and after taking cheques, they encashed the same in the District Central Co-operative Bank.
4. The petitioners initially challenged the charge memo in W.P.Nos.8585 of 2008, 9071 of 2008, 9569 of 2008 and 9568 of 2008 before this court. However, this court did not go into the merits of the charge memo, but merely directed the respondents to consider their representations. It is pursuant to the direction, the respondents held by an order, dated 17. 2009, held that on the basis of the existing orders and the directions of the Supreme Court, there is no bar for conducting domestic enquiry even pending criminal case. It was also stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, enquiry notice was also given.
5. The contention of the petitioners was that pending criminal case, departmental enquiry should be stayed.
6. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, which is as follows:
.(i) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 155).
.(ii) Kusheshwar Debey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others (AIR 1988 SC 2118)
(iii) Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another (1992 (4) SCC 711)
.(iv) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena and others (1996 (6) SCC 417)
.(v) Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc. (1997 (2) SCC 699).
.(vi) Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999(3) SCC 679).
(vii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. T.Srinivas (2004(7) SCC 442).
(viii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Sarvesh Berry (2005(10) SCC 471).
.(ix) Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. and others Vs. Mansaram Nainwal (2006(6) SCC 366).
.(x) Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others (2008 (1) SCC(L&S) 672).
7. However, there is no decision of any court holding that all enquiries must be forestalled pending criminal trial. In the present case, except for the final report filed, the petitioners have not shown any progress in the criminal case. In such circumstances, it is open to the respondents to initiate departmental action. The allegation about their unauthorised absence from duty is not the subject matter of the criminal case. Therefore, it cannot be said that criminal case and departmental enquiry are based on identical issue
