JUDGMENT :

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1820 of 2012, the Writ Petitioner has come up with the present Appeal.

2. It is seen that, when the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was working as a Police Constable in Salem, two criminal cases were filed against him, one in Crime No.944 of 2009 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) I.P.C. and the other in Crime No.617 of 2010 for offences under Section 341, 294(b) I.P.C. and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge sheets were laid against him and he was prosecuted for the above offences.

3. The allegation against the Appellant is that, on 14.06.2009, when he was in an inebriated state, he abused the defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained him. Hence, he was placed under suspension on 15.06.2009 and a Charge Memo was issued to him on 11.11.2009. Pursuant to the judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem in C.C.No.133/2009, the suspension was revoked and the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was taken back to duty.

4. Pursuant thereto, departmental proceedings were initiated against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate and Service (D&A) Rules, 1955, for the same allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and he submitted his Report on 13.09.2010 that, charges against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner were proved. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner made a detailed representation dated 05.10.2010 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Salem City. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd Respondent, vide proceedings dated 24.11.2010, imposed the punishment of 'reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect', on the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. Challenging the same, the Appellant preferred an Appeal to the 1st Respondent. By an order dated 28.04.2011, the 1st Respondent rejected the Appeal, by holding that, the charges against the Appellant have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, on the basis of sufficient evidence in the departmental proceedings.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that, the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings in the case on hand are based on identical set of facts and the charges in both the proceedings are one and the same. He contended that, if the acquittal was purely on technical grounds, i.e. lack of sanction, procedural deficiency, etc., then the, Department can proceed further. But, once there is acquittal, the Department cannot proceed further. He went on to contend that, when departmental proceedings are called for against a Government Servant who is acquitted by the Court, it should be reported to the Government for necessary orders. In the absence of these procedures, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority is erroneous and the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that, departmental proceedings stand on a different footing than that of criminal proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to PSO 33-A, 67 and 81 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders:

PSO 33.A: If certain facts affecting the charge were not placed before a criminal court or a definite aspect of the case was not considered by it, or if the acquittal was on purely technical grounds like lack of sanction, some technical defect in procedure, etc,. or the facts found proved by the Court were held insufficient to make out a criminal offence but may make out a departmental irregularity, it is open to the departmental authorities of institute departmental proceedings into the connected matters.

In every such case where the departmental authority is of opinion that departmental proceedings