The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs from criminal proceedings, allowing for dismissal even after acquittal in criminal court.

ORDER

Heard Mr.R. Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ravikumar, learned Special Govt. Pleader for the 1st respondent and Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was dismissed from service of the 2nd respondent under proceedings dated 01.04.2006 after being issued with charge memo dated 26.04.2005 and a domestic enquiry held on 28.12.2005; that the 2nd respondent while issuing charge memo and initiating disciplinary action, had simultaneously initiated criminal proceeding in respect of the same violation/action; that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner resulted in acquittal vide order passed in C.C.No.4 of 2015, dated 09.11.2016; that on the petitioner being acquitted in criminal proceedings, had made an application seeking revision of the order of dismissal dated 01.04.2006; that on the said revision not being considered had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.15182 of 2018; that this Court by an order dated 06.08.2018, directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the aforesaid revision application within a period of six weeks; and that the 1st respondent in compliance to the order of this Court had disposed of the revision vide order dated 30.11.2018, whereby, the punishment awarded vide order dated

01.04.2006 was modified.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent vide order dated 30.11.2018 instead of ordering reinstatement of petitioner as per section 77(4) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act , 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') had directed the payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/- in addition to payment of employees provident fund, gratuity and other connected financial benefits; and that the said order of the 1st respondent directing payment of compensation is illegal and liable to be quashed and petitioner is to be reinstated into service with attendant benefits being granted.

4. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another reported in 1999 (11) CTC 579.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted, that the 2nd petitioner is a Cooperative Society formed for the benefit of its members; that the petitioner while working as an Assistant Secretary, had resorted to financial misappropriation by accepting fake/faux gold for granting of loans; that the 2nd respondent on noticing the financial irregularities by issuing charge memo and conducting enquiry by following the procedure i.e., by appointing an enquiry officer, and based on the enquiry report dated 28.12.2005, issued show cause notice dated 01.03.2006 and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 15.03.2006 passed the impugned proceedings dated 01.04.2006 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the 2nd respondent.

6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is further contended that since the petitioner by his act of accepting fake/ faux gold for providing loans, not only caused loss to the 2nd respondent, but also having involved himself in cheating the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent initiated criminal action by lodging a complaint, based on which, criminal action has been initiated separately.

7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is also contended that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in accepting fake/faux gold for advancing loans, the 2nd respondent considered continuation of the petitioner in service would be detrimental to the