A. SANGURAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo dated 11.03.2015 issued against the writ petitioner is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner was working as Assistant in District Panchayat Office, Trichirappalli. The petitioner was placed under suspension in proceedings dated 30.03.1999 on account of the registration of a criminal case regarding allegations of demanding and acceptance of bribe under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prohibition of Corruption Act. The order of suspension was stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1227 of 2000 and he joined service and reached the age of superannuation. The petitioner was relieved from service in proceedings dated 29.04.2016 and he was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and further the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal and therefore the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits including further promotions to the higher posts on par with his immediate junior. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is invalid, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges.

(3.) Mere acquittal of a public servant in a criminal case would not exonerate from him from the departmental disciplinary proceedings automatically. The nature of the departmental disciplinary proceedings and the criminal cases are different and distinct. Strong evidence and proof are required to convict a person under the criminal charges. Even the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Therefore acquittal granted in a criminal case cannot be a bar for initiating/proceeding of the departmental disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority under the relevant discipline appeal rules. The standard of proof requires for the departmental disciplinary proceedings are not strict and even preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish a public servant under the discipline and appeal rules. Thus the Government employee acquitted in a criminal case shall be punished in the departmental disciplinary proceedings if the charges framed by the disciplinary authority are established during the course of enquiry.