The acquittal in a criminal case and exoneration from charges in a departmental inquiry can influence the treatment of a suspension period and the imposition of punishment.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent/Chairman and Members of the Appointment Committee, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3, communicated to him by the second respondent/Zonal Officer-1, Health Department, Zone-1, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3, in Ma.A.1.Na. Thu.Na.Ka. No. Su.1/1752/2003 dated 23.6.2003 confirming the order of the third respondent in Ma.A.1.Na.A.Na.Ka. No. H1/829/99 dated .5.2002 (But signed on 9.6.2002) and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents in treating his period of suspension from 19.2.1988 to 14.4.1998 as duty period and to grant him all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as a pharmacist under the control of Assistant Health Officer, Zone-I, Tondiarpet, Corporation of Chennai. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1998. He was placed under suspension with effect from 19.2.1988, while he was in service for his involvement in a criminal case in C.C. No. 8530 of 1988 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

3. Thepetitioner was convicted for offences under Section 18 (C) read with Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted as per Section 18 (a) read with Section 28 (a) of the said Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for three months, as per judgment delivered on 3.6.1999.

4. The petitioner projected an appeal in Crl. A. No. 153 of 1999 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. On 6.12.1999, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Crl. A. No. 153 of 1999, by setting aside the Judgment of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C. No. 8530 of 1988. As a matter of fact, he was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. During the pendency of Crl. A. No. 153 of 1999, he was reinstated in service with effect from 14.4.1998. He was placed under suspension once again on 30.7.1998 and was not allowed to retire from service on 31.7.1998, i.e., the date of superannuation.

5. The third respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai issued a Charge Memo dated 25.7.2000 subsequently, in regard to the same set of facts on which a criminal case was filed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 8530 of 1988, wherein he was acquitted in Crl. A. No. 153 of 1999 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. He has submitted his explanations to the Charge Memo and an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry officer submitted his Inquiry report on 26.6.2001 exonerating him from all the charges.

6. The third respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, passed an order in Ma.A.1.Na.A.Na. Ka. No. H1/829/99 dated .5.2002 (But signed on 9.6.2002) permitting the petitioner to retire from service with effect from the date of Superannuation viz. 31.7.1998, since he was exonerated from all the charges. The third respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, however imposed a punishment of ‘Censure‘ on him, because of the reason that he was responsible for bringing disrepute to the Corporation of Chennai, in the eye of public and treating the period of his suspension from 19.2.1988 to 14.4.1998 as ‘Leave on loss of Pay‘.

7. It is to be noted that the third respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai had not disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, acquitting the petitioner of all the charges. Furthermore, the third respondent has not rendered a finding that the petitioner was guilty. Infact, the third respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai should not have punished him, when he was not found guilty in Crl.A. No. 153 of 1999 (by the Competent Court) as well as in the Departmental proceedings. Hence, he filed an Appeal t