An order of acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily bar departmental disciplinary proceedings, as the standards of proof and procedures are different.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.039398/AP IV(1)/2012 dated 07.12.2012 and the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings C.No.B1/APP.18/2007 dated 27.06.2007 and the order passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings P.R.No.141/H2/2006 under Rule 17(b) dated 16.03.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service, together with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The order of punishment dated 16.03.2007 and the appellate order and also the revision order, confirming the order of original punishment, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined in the Police Department as Part Time Sweeper on 13.12.1986 and he was made as Full Time Sweeper on 06.09.1991. The service of the writ petitioner was regularised.

3. The departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner and a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued. The first charge is that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absented himself on 03.07.2006 and the second charge is that he has involved in a criminal case in Crime No.572 of 2006 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. The petitioner was arrested on the ground that the PDS rice meant for the Police Department Personnel had been illegally traced out in the backyard of the petitioner's residence. Thus, the criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner. The criminal trial ended with an order of acquittal as all the witnesses turned hostile.

5. Perusal of the judgment passed by the District Revenue Officer reveals that none of the witnesses have stated even the facts and contrarily, they turned hostile by simply stating that they do not know the accused person at all. Therefore, absolutely there was no adjudication of facts or statements obtained or other details regarding the charges. Thus, the Department has continued the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the order of acquittal is not a bar for the continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that to convict a person under the Criminal Law, strict proof of evidence is required. However, no such strict proof is required to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Preponderance of probabilities are enough to punish an employee. Therefore, the procedures to be followed in a criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different.

7. In this context, the Courts are repeatedly held that an order of acquittal is not a ground to exonerate an employee from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings independently based on the documents and evidences available and if the delinquent is found guilty, then suitable punishment shall be imposed.

8. In the present case, the departmental disciplinary proceedings continued and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry and affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry, defended his case and more-so he cross-examined all the witnesses examined by the Department. The Enquiry Officer considered the statements of the witnesses and also the cross-examination statements and made a finding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, as the proved ch