IMPORTANT POINT
The relevance of acquittal in criminal court to departmental disciplinary proceedings and the need for proportionality in the punishment imposed.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the learned Judge dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.3356 of 2018. For the Appellants: C.K. Chandrasekkar, Advocate.)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as against the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.3356 of 2018.

2. The short facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present Writ Appeal, are as follows:

2.1. The respondent was employed as an Administrative Officer at the appellant company. While so, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against Kaleelul Rahman, Cashier and John Christopher, Office Assistant of the company, as the first and second accused respectively on the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.9 lakhs of the company's funds. According to the respondent, both these staff members were not subordinate to him. However, when the CBI filed a charge sheet before the CBI Court, Madurai, the respondent was also arrayed as the third accused along with the accused 1 and 2.

2.2. Simultaneously, the appellant company initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Consequently, a charge memo was issued to the respondent alleging that he along with the other two staff members conspired together and misappropriated the company's funds. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer, in his proceedings dated 12.07.2012, concluded that the charges framed against the respondent were proved. Based on the Enquiry Officer's Report and after providing opportunity to the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority (the third appellant) passed an order on 20.09.2013 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the respondent.

2.3. The appeals filed by the respondent to the second appellant on 09.02.2016 and thereafter, to the first appellant on 24.10.2017, were rejected, thereby confirming the punishment of removal from service.

2.4. Challenging the orders dated 20.09.2013, 09.02.2016, and 24.10.2017 passed by the appellant authorities, the respondent filed a writ petition in WP.No.3356 of 2018 seeking to quash the same and direct the appellants to permit the respondent to retire and pay all his salary, promotion, terminal benefits core and non-core benefits to him.

3. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, found that the criminal court had acquitted the petitioner (Accused No. 3) from all the charges relating to misappropriation, criminal conspiracy and violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further pointed out by the learned Judge that there was no connection between the respondent and the other accused. Hence, the learned Judge held that as the charges were not proved before the criminal court, the disciplinary proceedings that led to the punishment of removal from service, should be revisited. Accordingly, the learned Judge ordered the writ petition by directing the appellants to reconsider the matter and award an alternative punishment which includes the compulsory retirement, to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

"45. Here in the case in hand, in respect of same set of charges, when a clear honourable acquittal has been registered by the petitioner before the Court of law, where the full fledge trial has been conducted, even though ipso facto that would not be a basis to come to a conclusion in the departmental proceedings, this Court feel that, when the charge of misappropriation mainly has been made against the petitioner and this has been concluded by the criminal court that, he has not misappropriated any money and no evidence has been produced and he has been declared to be an innocent one, this Court feel that, the respondents can consider him for giving an alternative punishment to the petitioner for the proven charge