The standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings are different from those in criminal cases, and a criminal acquittal does not bar a subsequent departmental enquiry for misconduct.

ORDER :

Under assail is the order dated 20.02.2019 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Bill Clerk in CRS Shop No.29, Koodal Nagar, Madurai District. He joined Civil Supply Corporation as a Seasonal Helper as early as on 22.04.2010 and thereafter, he was confirmed as a Bill Clerk from 05.03.2019. While he was working as a Bill Clerk along with Backer, viz, Ramaiah, the then Regional Manager viz., Rehobagyam issued a proceedings directing a two members committee to conduct inspection in CRS shop No.30. Accordingly, on 01.05.2016 between 12.00 noon to 05.00 pm, inspection was conducted. At the time of inspection, they did not find any default or mistake against the petitioner and therefore, they have taken the original records of “C” Register from the shop, which itself against the Rules. In the meantime, in the criminal proceedings came to be initiated in C.C.No.2 of 2017 on the Judicial Magistrate No.III (C.C.I.W), Madurai. The petitioner had been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.01.2019. The petitioner made a representation before the first respondent by furnishing copy of the judgement and also requested to consider in the light of the above said judgment. However, the first respondent in total non application of mind, without even referring to the grounds raised in the appeal, mechanically rejected the same vide order dated 20.02.2019. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to challenge the impugned order on the ground of selective punishment.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned came to be passed only to harass the petitioner, who is active participant in the Employees Union, like CITU, that too when no evidence is proved against the petitioner. He would submit that for the very same incident, the second respondent initiated criminal proceedings and the petitioner was acquitted on 11.01.2019. He would submit that all the charges levelled against the petitioner is itself stand fall vide their own proceedings to conduct reinvestigation on their alleged inspection held in CRS shop No.30. The same is evident from the very admission of P.W.2 in criminal case in C.C.No.2 of 2017. He would submit that the entire allegations in the charge memo based on the complaint given by one hard holder, who himself was not investigated by the Department as well as by the Police. There is no deficiency stock or deficiency of cash between the period of inspection and there is no loss to the corporation and the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was paid the alleged amount on protest. The respondents have failed to consider the crucial facts that the entire inspection conducted by Mr.Ramaguru and Mr.Mayapandi based on C-Register and they themselves ignored to refer stock register and cash book. The Vigilance Cell of the respondent Corporation itself issued a charge memo and awarded punishment to the inspecting committee members, who inspected CRS shop No.30 and the same is not considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. He would submit that entire batch of employees of the year 2