The acquittal in a criminal case impacts disciplinary proceedings when both are based on the same evidence, necessitating a reevaluation of the disciplinary action.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to call for the records of the order passed by the second respondent in Po.Thu.N.K.No.E.6/36252/2015 dated 10.05.2019 confirming the order passed by the first respondent made in G.O.No.422, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (M.N.3) dated 13.10.2016, confirming the order passed by the first respondent in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E.6/36252/2015 dated 20.10.2015 and order passed by the third respondent made in M.V.A.Na.Ka.No.A.5/002236/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and nonest in law and consequently, direct the third respondent to grant all attendant service benefits such as notional promotion with continuity of service and all other monetary service benefits with effect from 02.10.2008 to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest.

2. Heard Mrs.R.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate for R1 and Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Casual Labour in the year 1969 and he was promoted as Bill/Tax Collector in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was posted as Tax Collector in Division No.51, Zonal No.IV, in the Corporation of Chennai. On 19.08.2008 a complaint has been given by one Kumar alleging that the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- for effecting name transfer of the property. Subsequently, he was arrested under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and later, he was suspended on 02.10.2008. Both criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. But he was not permitted to retire.

3.1. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was convicted and immediately after the conviction, the petitioner was issued with the second show cause notice and a finding of guilty was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the petitioner was imposed with the major punishment of dismissal from service on 09.06.2015. He preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed on 20.10.2015. The petitioner has filed a revision and the same was also rejected on 13.10.2016. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3.

4. Mrs.R.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on the same set of facts and evidence; in the criminal case, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court in Crl.A.No.581 of 2014 and the appeal was allowed on 28.03.2018 and he was acquitted in the criminal case; the third respondent is not an appropriate authority to impose the capital punishment of dismissal from service; a proper procedure has not been followed while conducting the departmental enquiry; no oral witness was examined and the report of the Enquiry Officer does not speak about the material evidence, if any; though the departmental proceedings have been initiated in the year 2010, the proceedings were kept pending for four years and immediately after the petitioner was convicted, he was served with an order of dismissal without even conducting any exhaustive enquiry; the petitioner has rendered 35 years of service from 1975 to 2010 and his past service records were not considered before imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service.

5. Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner and the departmental proceedings have been conducted by following due procedure and the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner had not chosen to cross examine