Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2584
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
D. Karunamoorthy
Versus
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai
W.P.NO.1730 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Petitioner:N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. Suresh, GA.
The department is not precluded from conducting an enquiry despite the acquittal by the criminal court, as the aim and purpose of departmental enquiry is different from that of a criminal case.
Headnote:
Illegal Gratification - Departmental Enquiry - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Rule 17(b), Rule 56(1)(c), Fundamental Rules - G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat - Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia - Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya - State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order of suspension and not permitting retirement from service after being charge sheeted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case but was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that the department is not foreclosed from conducting the enquiry despite the acquittal by the criminal court. The court emphasized the difference in the aim and purpose of departmental enquiry compared to a criminal case.
Issues: Challenge to suspension and retirement orders, acquittal in criminal case, power of the department to conduct enquiry despite acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the department is not precluded from conducting an enquiry despite the acquittal by the criminal court. It emphasized the difference in the aim and purpose of departmental enquiry compared to a criminal case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the respondent, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai, dated 11.10.2008 and the consequential order of suspension, dated 25.5.2010 and the order dated 28.05.2010 in not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and seeks to set aside the same.
2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant in the office of the Joint Director of Health Services at Tiruvannamalai. By the impugned order, dated 11.10.2008, he was charge sheeted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner includes demanding and accepting of illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- from one Kumaraguru of Arni Palayam for arranging and to issue permission letter to 20 General Nursing Midwife students of first year of 2004- 5 of St.Mary's Hospital and Institute of Bio Medical Technology for the purpose of undergoing clinical training at Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Arni. A trap was laid by the Vigilance police and that currency notes were recovered. The petitioner, during the pendency of the charge memo, on 31.5.2010 had reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, with a view to retain him in service, an order dated 25.5.2010 was passed placing him under suspension and an another order, dated 28.05.2010 was passed under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules to retain him in service with a view to complete the proceedings.
3. When the matter came up on 10.2.2011, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice. It is the case of the petitioner that a criminal case was taken on file as C.C.No.3 of 2005 and tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Tiruvannamalai. By a judgment, dated 28.3.2007, the trial court had given benefit of doubt to the petitioner and had acquitted him. Therefore, it was contended that after his acquittal by the criminal court, it is not open to the respondent to frame any charge by re-producing verbatim the earlier charges. The witnesses to be examined are practically the same persons. Hence there was no power for the respondent to conduct an enquiry.
4. However, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. There is no rule by which the department is foreclosed from conducting the enquiry notwithstanding the acquittal by the criminal court. In the present case, the Special Court had acquitted the petitioner only by giving benefit of doubt and not honourable acquittal. The charges levelled against the petitioner is one of receiving illegal gratification with a view to accommodate some students of private institution in the Government hospital. It is for the petitioner to face the charges and prove his innocence. The aim and purpose of departmental enquiry is different from that of the criminal case. Even the standard of proof that is contemplated is different in the departmental enquiry than that of criminal trial.
5. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. In that case, the Supreme Court followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 764 and Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others reported in 1997 (2) SCC 699.
6. But the facts situation found in that cases were that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and same witnesses were examined both in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the findings rendered in the department enquiry were set aside. It is necessary to refer to paragraph 30 of the G.M.Tank case which is as follows:
“30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings
