SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT MADRAS Vs. MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which this writ appeal raises is, whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the penalty awarded by the competent authority after a domestic enquiry is held and misconduct established, only on the ground that it is disproportionate to the misconduct proved? To answer the question, a brief note of the facts would be necessary.

(2.) THE respondent was employed as a foundry worker in the Government Press. On a charge of steeling conemetal weighing about 540 grams he was proceeded against departmentally. A criminal case was also registered against him and he was prosecuted in C.C. No. 18991 of 1919 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, in reply, submitted that since the respondent had been tried for the criminal offence in a competent court, he could not have been proceeded with in the departmental enquiry, According to the learned counsel, the acquittal of the respondent by a criminal Court was binding on the departmental authorities and no finding contra to the finding of the criminal Court could have been recorded against the respondent LEARNED counsel relies upon an earlier judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6593 of 1983, decided on 12.12.1985 in support of his submission.