The acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an employee from departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the standard of proof required in the two proceedings is different.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondents 1, 2 & 4 dated 22.10.2010, 19.12.2009 and 15.10.2012 issued in proceedings No.6804/EW-1/2010, 4060/Mu.Vu./2009, 11469/Po-1/96 and G.O.(D).No.854 Home (Prison-2) Department respectively and quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant service and monetary benefits.)

1. The order of dismissal from service issued in G.O.(D).No.854, Home (Prison-2) Department dated 15.10.2012 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as a Grade-II Warder in Prison Service on 21.03.1988.

3. A charge memo was framed against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 29.10.1999. The charge against the writ petitioner was that on 24.08.1996 at about 9.15 p.m., the petitioner thrown bundle of prohibited article (Ganja) inside the Prison for handing it over to the Prisoner No.2573, Muthu Krishnan. When the information was passed on to the Jailer, an inspection was conducted and they found half Kilogram (½ kgs) of Prohibited article i.e., Ganja (7 packets) beneath the bed of MuthuKrishnan, Prisoner. Therefore, the departmental disciplinary actions were initiated. A criminal case was also registered. However, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal through judgment dated 28.02.2006. The petitioner was acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. However, the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner was continued and the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted an enquiry. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding that the charges are held proved, the punishment of dismissal from service was issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 19.12.2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the said appeal was also rejected on 22.10.2010. The writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.11574 of 2011, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent and the said writ petition was withdrawn by the writ petitioner with a liberty to approach the authority for appropriate remedy. Again, the writ petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 4th respondent on 31.10.2011, which was also rejected by the 4th respondent in G.O.(D).No.854, Home (Prison-2) Department dated 15.10.2012 and the said orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the case of the petitioner before the Criminal Court of Law was adjudicated elaborately and after conducting trial, the Criminal Court granted an order of acquittal. When the evidence produced before the Criminal Court and the departmental proceedings are one and the same, there is no reason whatsoever to impose the punishment of removal from service. The Disciplinary Authority have imposed the punishment of removal from service based on the statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry and such statement obtained during the preliminary enquiry cannot be a basis for imposing the penalty of dismissal. The statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry alone would be insufficient to impose punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have failed to consider the findings of the Criminal Court for the purpose of acquittal of the writ petitioner and also failed to consider the contradictions between the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.8 and the documents, which were dealt with by the Criminal Court of Law.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the case on hand is a case, where, no evidence is available and therefore, the order of dismissal is to be set aside.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents