R SEKAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo issued against the writ petitioner in P.R.No.02 of 2013 dated 02.01.2013, by the first respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner joined as Grade-II Police Constable in Armed Reserve Police on 04.04.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable. On account of the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe, a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner in Crime No.07 of 2002, under the provisions of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal Court of law and the facts and circumstances both in the criminal case as well as the departmental disciplinary proceedings are one and the same and therefore the charge memo is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner is of an opinion that the writ petitioner was already acquitted from the criminal charges and the same set of documents are produced before the departmental disciplinary proceedings and therefore the department cannot proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) The learned additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose the contention by stating that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not exonerate an employee in departmental disciplinary proceedings. The allegations set out against the writ petitioner is demand and acceptance of bribe and therefore no leniency can be shown against the writ petitioner. This apart, the criminal case was disposed of by the competent Court on 08.05.2012 and thereafter the department has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. The department has waited for the outcome of the criminal case in view of the fact that during the pendency of the criminal case, the department cannot proceed with, against the writ petitioner under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.