NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with four others were charge sheeted by the Vigilance Department under Sections 5 (1) (c) and (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 120-6, 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused criminally conspired to misappropriate Government funds, created with intention to cheat, fabrication of false certificates of work towards charge for pulling out seedlings from Social ] Forestry Nurseries and by using such forged vouchers as genuine and falsifying the accounts and by committing criminal breach of trust, misappropriated Government money. By Ext. P-2 judgment, the petitioner and others ; were acquitted. In Exhibit P-2 judgment the Criminal Court came to the following conclusion:

(2.) THEREAFTER, the second respondent issued Ext. P-1 memo of charges along with statement of allegations. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) THE delinquent officers have always raised the question of competency of the Government to take disciplinary action after the pronouncement of the Criminal Court acquitting the accused, before this Court as well as before the Apex Court. The earliest and the most important decision in this respect is that of Mathew, J. (as he then was) in Spadigam v. State of Kerala (1970- I-LLJ-718 ). Analysing the whole gamut of the question of issue estoppel Justice Mathew dealt with the difference between the standards of proof in a criminal case and in a civil case, and also its applicability to the domestic enquiries as follows: at p 723