An acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate an employee from disciplinary proceedings, which follow a different standard of proof.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the writ petitioner. He has filed the present writ appeal assailing the order of the writ Court dated 02.04.2019.

2. The appellant was working as Secretary of the Korampallam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Thrift Society/third respondent. He was suspended by the Special Officer of the Society on 22.10.2003 and reinstated on 04.03.2004. He was suspended again in regard to the same allegations on 24.02.2005 and reinstated as per the direction of this Court on 30.03.2005. Thereafter, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies/second respondent issued a charge memo in proceedings dated 16.02.2007 framing eleven (11) charges as against the writ petitioner. The charges related to misappropriation of funds, fraud, breach of trust, issue of bogus loan, various violations in regard to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

3. After enquiry, an order had been passed holding the writ petitioner guilty of charges and he was dismissed from service on 10.08.2009. The appellant had filed a revision under Section 153 of the Act before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Sales, Planning and Development)/first respondent which also came to be dismissed on 06.09.2010. It was that order that was assailed in the writ petition.

4. The writ Court has referred to the rival contentions in regard to the order of termination, finding ultimately that the proceedings were in alignment with the principles of natural justice. The other main ground that had been raised by the writ petitioner was that he had been successful in the criminal case that had been foisted on him in regard to the same charges.

5. Learned Judge has found, and we agree on this score that the order of acquittal in a criminal case could not be the basis for exoneration from disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty. Reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 is found well placed.

6. Learned Judge has also referred to the judgment in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya reported in (1997) 2 SCC 699 on the settled proposition that standard of proof in regard to criminal charges and disciplinary proceedings would be different in that the standard would be far higher in criminal matters. As far as disciplinary proceedings were concerned, they could proceed on preponderance of probabilities and the enquiry officer had come to the correct conclusion, which according to the writ court that the charges had been established.

7. Yet another point that had been put forth in the writ petition related to the fact that two other employees one M.Ayyampandi, who worked as a Assistant Secretary in R3/Society and P.Amutha, who worked as a Clerk in the Society has been exonerated from the charges and that the writ petitioner had been singled out for the unfair treatment.

8. After a detailed hearing, the writ court was of the view that the responsibility on the writ petitioner as Secretary of the third respondent Society was far higher. He was aware of the procedures to be followed and the charges in relation to misappropriation in crop loan and fabricating of records were serious.

9. The enquiry officer had found that the charges had been proved against the writ petitioner and it was based on his enquiry report that the impugned orders had been passed. The revisional authority had also concurred with the punishment of dismissal and rightly, the writ court held, that the charges levelled were grave in nature. The writ petition has hence come to be dismissed, assailing which the present writ appeal has been filed.

10. We have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.K.Premkumar, learned counsel for Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Go