Departmental disciplinary findings can sustain charges independently of criminal acquittal, emphasizing the distinct standards applicable to misconduct in public service.

ORDER :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The above writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the proceedings issued by the third respondent in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013, and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in RC.No.167282/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 15.02.2006, and to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits, on par with his batchmates.

2. The chequered history of the case is as follows:

(i) The petitioner herein was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Vellode Police Station from 21.01.2005 to 17.05.2005. On 12.05.2005, one Shanmugam @ Sakthi, S/o. Arumugam, lodged a complaint at Vellode Police Station against one Shanmugavel and one Vignesh. The complaint was registered as Vellode Police Station Crime No.86/2005 under Section 294(b) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. The petitioner registered the case, arrested the accused, and subsequently released them on bail.

(ii) It was later alleged that the petitioner abducted Mahalakshmi, W/o. Shanmugavel (the accused in Crime No.86/2005), by trespassing into her residence on the night of 12/13.05.2005 at around 2:30 a.m., under the pretext of an enquiry. He was accompanied by one Anandan @ Anandkumar, a "Friend of Police," and used a Government-allotted motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 33 G 0285. It was further alleged that the petitioner raped Mahalakshmi in the premises of the Ellai Maraiamman Temple near Muhaasi Anumanpallai Village.

(iii) Based on the complaint filed by Mahalakshmi, a case was registered as Vellode Police Station Crime No.88/2005 under Sections 451, 352, 366, 376(i), read with Sections 376(i), 511, and 212 of the IPC, against the petitioner and Anandan @ Anandakumar. The case was tried in S.C.No.135 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, and ended in acquittal by judgment dated 13.11.2006. Due to his involvement in the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the third respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, under Rule 3(e)(i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, vide R.O.No.187 of 2005 in C.No.D1/4294/2005, dated 16.05.2005.

(iv) The petitioner was charged under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in PR.No.41 of 2006, based on the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Sub-Division. The enquiry covered six charges, all of which were held to be proved after an oral enquiry was conducted under Rule 3(b).

(v) A further representation was obtained from the petitioner, and the punishment order in the PR was at the final stage. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.1748 and 1749 of 2007 before this Court, seeking to quash the charge memo issued in PR.No.41 of 2006 under Rule 3(b) and the suspension order. Subsequently, both writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 28.04.2010.

3. The petitioner was directed to be dealt with under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.41 of 2006, based on six charges framed pursuant to the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

4. The enquiry was con