Judgment :

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

Writ Appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 11.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.19404 of 2007. Another writ petition came to be filed by the deceased Appellant, Mr.N.Nithyanantham in W.P.No.21131 of 2017 challenging the order of removal as well as the appellate order passed by Inspector General of Registration and Director General of Police. Since the first writ petition had been instituted challenging the order of removal passed by the original authority as well as by the first appellate authority, both the writ appeal and the writ petition are taken together for hearing and the following common order is passed.

2. The legal issue involved in the present lis is about simultaneous proceedings i.e., departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings against a public servant.

3. The governing legal principles on simultaneous proceedings are:

i) The departmental domestic enquiry and the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry.

ii) The nature of both proceedings and the test applied to reach a final conclusion in the matter are entirely different.

iii) If the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in possession of the required materials for the purpose of conducting enquiry, then administrative decision may be taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the disposal of the criminal case. However, the advisability and desirability has to be determined considering the facts of each case by the authority concerned. Therefore, it would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.

iv) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.

v) Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with service rules and regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.

vi) In the criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by the Court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer, on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. To convict a person under criminal law, high standard of proof is required. Even a benefit of doubt would be a benefit for the accused in a criminal case. However, no such strict proof is required in a departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there is absolutely no bar for the respondents to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same and pass final orders.

vii) An order of conviction if any passed in a criminal case or in criminal appeal, after disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, then if necessary, the Head of the department or the Government may exercise the power of review as the case may be under the relevant rules.

viii) Order of acquittal, if at all passed in a criminal case or in criminal appeal, the same would not affect the final order already passed in the department disciplinary proceedings, based on the domestic enquiry conducted, in view of the fact, acquittal in a criminal case, cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

4. The fact in brief, in the present lis, are that the deceased appellant Mr.N.Nithyanantham was initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the TamilNadu Police Service in the year 1985. He was subsequently trans