Disciplinary proceedings can proceed independently of pending criminal cases without equating their standards of proof; acquittal in criminal cases does not invalidate departmental findings.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 1^st respondent in Appeal No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), under Section 60 (9) r/w Section 63 of the Kerala University Act , 1974 (the ‘Act’ in short), against the judgment dated 08.11.2004 passed by the Tribunal in that appeal.

2. The 1^st respondent herein, who is the appellant in Appeal No.2 of 2004 before the Tribunal, was a Last Grade Staff in N.S.S. College, Nilamel. The College had its PTA account in the State Bank of Travancore, Nilamel. A cheque leaf was stolen from the college, and affixing the forged signature and seal of the Principal, the cheque was encashed for Rs.1,30,000/- on 28.12.2002. On getting a complaint from the Principal, the Police registered a crime and arrested the 1^st respondent and his friend Rajesh Kannan in connection with the theft of the cheque and withdrawal of the amount from the Bank. Meanwhile, on 28.12.2002, the 1^st respondent deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his bank account. Following the registration of the crime and the arrest of the 1^st respondent by the Police, the 1^st respondent was placed under suspension, and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The enquiry officer submitted his report, wherein the charges levelled against the 1^st respondent were reported as proved. Therefore, ultimately, the 1^st respondent was dismissed from service by the order dated 10.11.2003 of the petitioner herein. Challenging the dismissal from service, the 1^st respondent filed Appeal No.2 of 2004 before the Tribunal under Section 60 of the Act. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein filed a detailed counter affidavit. From the side of the 1^st respondent, the impugned order of his dismissal from service was marked as Exhibit A1 and from the side of the petitioner herein, the entire files relating to the disciplinary enquiry were marked as Exhibit B1 series. The Tribunal raised necessary points for consideration and, after hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, by the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2004, allowed the appeal, by setting aside the order of the petitioner dated 10.11.2003, dismissing the 1^st respondent from service with effect from 25.01.2003 and directed the Management to await the disposal of the original case registered against the 1^st respondent in connection with the same incident. It was also ordered that in the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent shall continue in suspension from the service of the petitioner. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to pass a fresh order in the disciplinary proceedings against the 1^st respondent in tune with the findings of the criminal court.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner is now before this Court with the present revision petition.

4. On 28.03.2005, when this revision petition came up for consideration, this Court admitted the same and issued notice to the respondents. However, despite service of notice, none appeared for the 1^st respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the 3^rd respondent.

5. When the appeal records are called for by the order dated 05.11.2025, it was informed by the Tribunal that the records were destroyed, following the Rules as per the Office order dated 10.06.2020.

6. Since the records in Appeal No.2 of 2004 have already been destroyed by the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, on 04.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader have made available for the perusal o