Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, as the standards of proof differ significantly.

COMMON O RDER

W.P.No.18764 of 2017 has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 11.04.2017, thereby dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. W.P.No.20081 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 10.03.2023.

3. The petitioner had joined as a Constable Grade II on 27.12.1978. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1989 and Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2005. While the petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Edaikkal Police Station in Villupuram District, he was suspended from service by an order dated 24.06.2011 alleging that the petitioner had involved in a murder case registered in Crime No.446 of 2011, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District. He was arrayed as fourth accused. After suspension, the petitioner was issued with charge memo and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After completion of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service. It was challenged in W.P.No.18764 of 2017.

4. After completion of investigation in Crime No.446 of 2011, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.284 of 2017. Pending writ petition, the criminal case in SC.No.284 of 2017 ended in acquittal by the Judgment dated 25.03.2022. Pursuant to the acquittal, the petitioner filed a revision as against the order of dismissal before the first respondent in W.P.No.20081 of 2023. It was rejected, on the ground that the order of dismissal has already been under challenge in W.P.No.18764 of 2017 before this Court. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20081 of 2023 challenging the order passed by the first respondent in W.P.No.20081 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was arrayed as the fourth accused in S.C.No.284 of 2017, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the Trial Court concluded that none of the witnesses had spoken against the petitioner or about his involvement in the case of murder. That apart, the deceased was his own son-in-law and his daughter was also arrayed as third accused. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the petitioner. Pursuant to the said acquittal, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent in W.P.No.20081 of 2023 as against the order of dismissal on the basis of the acquittal from the criminal Court. He further submitted that the only charge framed as against the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings was with respect to the alleged murder of the deceased. Therefore, there was no other charge against the petitioner. Both the charges before the Criminal Court as well as the disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. In fact, the same witnesses who were examined before the Trial Court were also examined in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

6. A perusal of counter filed by the respondents in both the writ petitions and also on the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents revealed that there was a delay in filing the revision before the first respondent. The petitioner was dismissed from service and the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.18764 of 2017. Pending writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court, only on the ground th