The central legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of a second punishment on the same misconduct, after the individual has been convicted in a criminal case, constitutes 'double jeopardy' and is not permissible under the relevant disciplinary rules and constitutional provisions.

M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

The writ petition is filed for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order dated 28.1.2004 made in O.A. No. 1077 of 2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') and the order in proceedings No. Na.Ka.A1.6032/94, dated 30.4.1999 passed by the second respondent and consequently to direct him to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner joined as a Village Administrative Officer in the year 1984 and while he was working in that capacity at Manavarayanenthal Village, Thiruchuli Circle, the second respondent herein had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 7.10.1994 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (CCA) Rules. The charges framed against the petitioner are that:

(a) for having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,500/- collected as Revenue Income;

(b) for having absented duty.

3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 20.10.1994, to the charge memo stating that even prior to the issuance of the charge memo, he remitted the amount to the Government accounts. Insofar as the second charge relating to absence from duty, the petitioner submitted that it was due to his ill-health and the absence from duty was not wilful.

4. The disciplinary authority not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, ordered enquiry and it was conducted. The enquiry officer filed his report dated 19.11.1994 has held that both the charges have been proved. In response to the said enquiry report, the petitioner had submitted his further representation. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the enquiry report and further explanation submitted by the petitioner had passed final orders stating that "the petitioner is liable for capital punishment, but taking into account, the long unblemished service of the petitioner and the duration of his suspension period, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect would be appropriate."

5. As regards the same allegation, criminal prosecution was also launched against the petitioner on the ground that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- representing the tax collection collected during the month of March and April has been remitted on 7.10.1994. A case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 166 of 1994 under Section 409 of IPC on 2.12.1994, i.e. two months after the payment was made by the petitioner to the Government accounts.

6. Even though the departmental proceedings started earlier, it was not stayed or deferred and disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal prosecution simultaneously went on and the departmental proceedings ended earlier, which culminated into the above said punishment.

7. In so far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, the petitioner herein filed a memo admitting the guilt in respect of the offence under Section 409 of the IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, based on the said memo, has found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 409 of the IPC and imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300/- with a default sentence of one month Rigorous Imprisonment vide order dated 3.11.1995. The petitioner has paid the fine amount in compliance of the said order.

8. The second respondent vide show cause notice dated 5.12.1998 under Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him in terms of the said Rule. The petitioner, in response to the said show cause notice, has submitted his explanation dated 3.2.1999. The second respondent vide proceedings dated 30.4.1999 has taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and found that his explanation is not satisfactory and therefore, imposed a capital punishment of dismissal from ser