In disciplinary proceedings, an acquittal in criminal cases necessitates a re-evaluation of administrative actions, particularly where procedural irregularities may exist.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the school managed by the 5^th respondent and was later promoted as High School Assistant (English), and continued as such. However, in the year 2018, Crime No. 80/2018 was registered by the Edavanna Police against the petitioner, alleging offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 376(2), 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was initially suspended by Ext. P1 order dated 01.06.2018, and Ext. P2 memo of charges dated 21.07.2018 was also served on him. The memo of charges would show that the statement of allegations has been specifically raised therein with reference to the petitioner and his involvement with another female teacher of the school.

2. The matter was enquired into by the District Educational Officer (DEO), as evident from Ext. P3. However, the 3^rd respondent found that the enquiry was required to be redone, as the petitioner was not made a party to the enquiry proceedings. Consequently, a re-enquiry was conducted and the report at Ext. P5 was prepared by the DEO. Based on the said report, the petitioner was proposed to be removed from service, as evidenced by Ext. P6. However, the 3^rd respondent, through Ext. P7 dated 01.12.2021, directed that a punishment lesser than the one proposed in Ext. P6 be imposed. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by Ext. P8.

3. Though the petitioner preferred Ext. P9 revision petition before the Government against Ext. P8, the same was rejected by Ext. P11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri. Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that the entire proceedings required to be set aside for more than one reason. Firstly, according to him, the enquiry report at Ext.P4 is just the repetition of the earlier report at Ext.P3. Secondly, he would point out that the criminal case against the petitioner ended in his acquittal as evidenced by Ext.P12 Judgment of the Fast Track Special Court- II, Manjeri. Therefore, it is his submission that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the Government.

5. Per contra, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, would point out that there is no requirement for ordering any remand in the matter, since it is the allegations against the petitioner, as noticed earlier, that were considered in the enquiry reports, and the findings in the judgment of the criminal court may not have any implication at this point. He would also place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee [2025 KHC OnLine 6105] to contend that even in a case where an accused is acquitted on the ground of “benefit of doubt”, disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal cannot be interfered with.

6. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

7. As already noticed, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service, as evidenced by Ext. P8, for the reasons stated therein. It is not in dispute that the entire proceedings culminated in Ext. P8 on the basis of the enquiry report at Ext. P5. A reading of Ext. P5 would show that the conclusions therein were arrived at on the basis of the evidence elicited on 28.11.2019, 22.12.2020 and 23.12.2020. With reference to the contents of the original report at Ext. P3, this Court notices that Ext. P3 was also prepared solely on the basis of the very same evidence. However, as noted in Ext. P5, it was found that Ext. P3 could not be acted upon, since admittedly the petitioner was not a participant in the enquiry proceedings. That being so, the report at Ext. P5 ought not to have relied solely on the very same evidence whic