ORDER

The charge memo dated 30.01.2015 issued by the respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner is working as Assessor Grade II in Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and with reference to the allegations of corruption, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the criminal case is ended with an order of honourable acquittal and therefore, the petitioner is to be exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.V.Mahadevan-vs- M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in (2005(4)CTC 403) and submitted that when an employee is acquitted on honorary in a criminal case, then, he should be exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel also relied on an another judgment in the case of the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government-vs- M.Sampath, made in W.A(MD)Nos.316 to 318 of 2015, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court passed an order on 10.06.2015 relating to the delay in institution of disciplinary proceedings and concurred in respect of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of D.Dhinakaran-vs-The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Rural District, Coimbatore and others, reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 1218. Further, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bhaskar Reddy and another-vs- Superintendent of Police and another, reported in (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 365, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the charges both in the criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings are identical and therefore, the order of honourable acquittal by the Criminal Court is a ground to quash the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention by stating that with reference to the corruption allegations, the department has to conduct an independent enquiry with reference to the facts and circumstances. While conducting enquiry various aspects prevailing in the department are also to be considered by the disciplinary authority. Thus, mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be a bar for the department to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6.This Court is of the considered opinion that acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case is not a bar for the department to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that it is not a mere order of acquittal, it is an order of honourable acquittal and therefore, the proceedings are to be dropped.

7.The question arises the criminal Court of Law in many cases grant acquittal on benefit of doubt and in certain cases, honourable acquittal. However, this Court has to consider based on the criminal Court judgment whether the departmental disciplinary proceedings can be quashed or not.

8.The legal prepositions to be considered mainly are that the nature of proceedings which are paramount importance. The nature of criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are distinct and different. The criminal proceedings required a strict proof for convict a person, however, no further strict proof would require to punish the employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Even preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish the employee.

9.The Conduct Rules stipulate that no Government servant involve moral turpitude on his part including any unlawful act. Therefore, in certain allegations even registration of a criminal case against the public servant is taken into consideration as a moral turpitude. For an example, such registration of criminal cases are considered even for appointments, identified the suitability and eligibility were also in