Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate an employee from departmental disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the orders in (1) Pro.Na.Ka.No.G1/25245/2014 (Salem City PR No.H1/27/2013) dated 05.02.2015 of the second respondent and (2) Pro.Rc.No.B1/61/1328/2015 dated 20.05.2015 (Appeal No.32/2015) of the first respondent and to quash the same.)

1. The order of punishment of postponement of increment for 3 years without cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was holding the post of Police Constable Grade-I and a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner in Crime No.765 of 2012 under Sections 294(b), 323, 353, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The criminal proceedings were initiated on 14.11.2012. Simultaneously departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and a charge memo was issued on 15.04.2013. The criminal case ended with an order of acquittal vide judgment dated 29.01.2014. The petitioner furnished the copy of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court and made a representation to drop the departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry and thereafter passed final orders on 05.02.2015 imposing the penalty of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the DIG of Police, Salem on 20.05.2015. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent failed to consider the order of acquittal passed by the Competent Criminal Court of Law and also erred in holding that the charges are held proved. When the charges both in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings are similar, the order of acquittal made by the competent Criminal Court is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of exonerating the writ petitioner from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In other words, actions under Criminal Law and departmental disciplinary proceedings are on the same set of facts.    The respondents have failed to consider the nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances involved in the case. The findings of the Criminal Court was also not considered. Thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the allegation against the writ petitioner was serious. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Salem, City initiated disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 for the reprehensible conduct of the petitioner that while attending duty in the Police Control Room on 14.11.2012, he was in a drunken mood and abused Thiru Raghunathan, Special Sub Inspector of Police on duty by using unparliamentary words and assaulted him. Though the colleagues in the Control Room pacified the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner did not relent and therefore, the writ petitioner was taken to Government Hospital and drunkenness certificate was obtained and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.765 of 2012 in Annadhanapatti Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 353, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court with reference to the deposition made by the witnesses before the Criminal Court. All the witnesse