An employee cannot be penalized in a departmental inquiry for matters already resolved in their favor during criminal proceedings, as per statutory protections.

JUDGMENT

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayers in the aforecaptioned original petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: [see page No.12 of the paper book of this O.P.]

“....................... this Hon'le Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Exhibit P4 Order dated 21.06.2019 in O.A.(E) No.1294/2015 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, pending disposal of the above Original Petition.”

2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. (State of Kerala and 4 others)/respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed by this Court in this Original Petition, notice to the respondent herein/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal will stand dispensed with.

3. The prayers in Ext.P1 Original Application O.A.(Ekm)

No.1294/2015 filed by the respondent herein are as follows: (see page No.29 of the paper book of this O.P.)

“(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A5 Order No.H2/PR/21/97/Q Dt.02.05.2000 issued by the Fourth Respondent; Annexure A7 Order No.A2(B)/7316/2000 TR Dt.15.11.2000 issued by the Third Respondent; Annexure A8 Order Dt.27.06.2009 G.O.(RT) 1839/09/Hom issued by the First Respondent; and Annexure A12 Order Dt.16.4.2014 issued by the First Respondent.”

4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has passed the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 21.06.2019 in O.A.(Ekm) No.1294/2015, ordering that the original applicant is guilty of the allegations in the memo of charges and the impugned further action taken thereon on the basis of the said report cannot be legally sustained in view of the clean acquittal of the original applicant as per Annexure A4 judgment . Accordingly the Tribunal has quashed the impugned orders at Annexures A5,A7, A8 & A12 and has directed the respondents in the O.A. to restore the increments withheld from the original applicant and revise the pensionary claims accordingly and the 1st respondent in the O.A. was directed to pass necessary orders to enable the original applicant to draw the revised pension including arrears thereon within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order of the Tribunal, etc. It is this order at Ext.P4 rendered by the Tribunal, that is under challenge in this Original Petition.

5. The applicant while working as a Police Constable/Civil Police Officer in the Armed Reserve of the Police wing, was ordered to be placed under suspension from service as per impugned Annexure A1 order dated

25.07.1996 issued by the 4th respondent District Superintendent of Police, Kollam on the allegation that a crime case (Crime No.154/1996 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam) has been registered against him for having allegedly caused public nuisance by indulging in a scuffle with another person at Chavara. It is common ground that the said crime case arising out of the abovesaid FIR resulted in a Summary Trial Case, S.T.No.901/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Karunagappilly, Kollam District. Further, it appears that there are two accused persons therein, first accused being the original applicant and the second accused being one Biju, who is stated to be the brother of the applicant’s wife. The allegation is that both the above said accused were found indulging in a scuffle in a public place, which caused public nuisance and that they have thus committed offence punishable under Section 160 of the IPC. After trial, the trial court has pronounced Annexure A4 judgment dated 11.01.2000 in S.T.No.901/1996 whereby the accused have been acquitted of the abovesaid alleged offences and they have been set at liberty. The disciplinary enquiry in pursuance of the allegations raised in Annexure A1 was conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Police (Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal) Rules (“KPDIPA Rules” for short). The applicant was