The central legal point established in the judgment is that acquittal in a criminal case based on benefit of doubt does not exonerate an employee from departmental disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings in DIS/CON/273 dated 20.06.2008 and HR/BR/No.1762 dated 13.07.2013 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in DIS/CON/600 dated 26.02.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.)

1. The order of punishment of dismissal from service confirmed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Messenger and joined in service on 26.06.1986. The Departmental disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the writ petitioner and the following charge was framed:

CHARGE:

“The CSE, while working as Head Messenger at Rasipuram Branch has stealthily removed 10 sections of Rs.500/- denomination currency notes and replaced with that of fake currency notes on 10.02.2005. However, it was found that the bundle was short by 22 pieces and 2 notes were found to be genuine. Hence, the CSE had cheated the Branch to the extent of Rs.49,000/-.”

3. A criminal case was registered simultaneously and pending criminal proceedings, the Departmental disciplinary proceedings were concluded. The petitioner defended the allegations and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry and based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the confession statement recorded by the competent authorities were obtained by force and it was not voluntary. Thus the said confession statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. The order of the Appellate Authority is cryptic in nature and the grounds raised by the writ petitioner were not considered. In view of the fact that the petitioner raised an objection with reference to the forced circumstances, the said grounds raised are not considered both by the disciplinary authority and by the Appellate Authority. The learned senior counsel admitted that there was a delay in approaching this Court, however the allegations raised by the petitioner need not be confined with him as the issue relating to fake currency are generally found in many circumstances in public domain. The petitioner alone is penalised for such allegation despite the fact that the currency in Banks are dealt with by many other officials and the petitioner being a Messenger cannot be held responsible for such serious offences. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court with reference to the findings of the Criminal Court of law, which would reveal that it may not be possible for a Messenger to commit such an offence. Drawing factual inferences, in such circumstances, the Criminal Court of law arrived at a conclusion and accordingly acquitted the writ petitioner from the criminal charges. Though the order of acquittal was passed on the ground of benefit of doubt, the entire circumstances through which the decision was arrived by the Criminal Court are also to be taken note of. Relying on the said finding, the learned senior counsel urged that the petitioner in this case became a victim of the circumstances and further the appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority raising several grounds were not considered. Thus the writ petition is to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State Bank of India objected the said contention by stating that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of latches. The order of dismissal was issued by the disciplinary authority on 26.02.2008 and the Appellate