The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of departmental proceedings due to the failure to consider the acquittal in the criminal case, lack of evidence, and absence of reasons in the disciplinary proceedings.

(Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.10.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.10013 of 2005.)

P.K. Misra, J.

The above writ appeal has been filed by the appellant herein as against the order of dismissal dated 17.10.2007 made in W.P.(MD)No.10013 of 2005 by the learned single Judge.

2. The appellant herein approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.C.No.A2/5569/2005, A.P.No.31/2005 dated 19.09.2005 confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide No.PR.No.119/2003 u/4.3(b) dated 12.07.2005 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents herein to re-instate the appellant herein in service with all consequential benefits and to continue in service.

3. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows:

The appellant herein joined Police Department as Police Constable Grade II in the year 1975. He was subsequently promoted as Police Constable Grade I and thereafter as Head Constable. It is the case of the appellant that while he was serving as Head Constable, at Sedapatti Police Station a false case under Section 147, 148, 341, 342, 326, 302 506(ii) was foisted against him which was registered in Crime No.468/2002 on the file of the above mentioned Police Station. Subsequently, the said case was charge sheeted, the appellant herein was shown as first accused in the criminal case. The said case was tried by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in S.C.No.105 of 2004 on his file. While the said case was pending against the appellant, the second respondent herein issued a charge memo in P.R.No.119 dated 25.06.2003 alleging that on 12.12.2002, the appellant herein who was working as Head Constable was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of one Thangaiah @ Ambuli, S/o.Nagalingam while, the said Thangaiah @ Ambuli would be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai as a remand prisoner. Thereafter, he left to Chennai on 16.12.2002 to participate in the grievance redressal day and thereafter confirming the commission of the offence of murder over phone from Chennai with the other conspirators returned to Sedapatti Police Station.

4. Since the substance of the criminal case and of the charge memo are based on the same set of facts, the appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai in O.A.No.2352 of 2003 and sought to restrain the authorities from conducting any departmental enquiry pending criminal trial. The said O.A was finally disposed of by order dated 25.08.2003 with a direction to the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case. Immediately, the said order was intimated to the enquiry officer by the respondent through a telegram. That apart, the appellant has also submitted a petition in person before the Enquiry Officer and requested him not to proceed with the enquiry. Inspite of the request made by the appellant, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and obtained signatures of the appellant in minutes and thereafter, the appellant was asked to submit his explanation before the Enquiry Officer. But the appellant has refused to submit his explanation by pointing out the pendency of the criminal case and the grant of the stay order by the Tribunal in the O.A.No.2352 of 2003, filed by him. In the mean time, on 15.09.2003, the copy of the order of the Tribunal was received by the appellant, but by the time, the enquiry was completed and the enquiry officer had submitted his report holding that the charges proved. However, on production of the copy of the order, no further proceedings was taken by the second respondent and he kept silent pending disposal of the criminal case. In the meantime, by judgment dated 12.07.2005, the appellant herein was acquitted in the cr