M. NEELAMEGAM Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order not allowing the Writ Petitioner to retire from service and retention of his service and also the charge-memo issued in proceeding, dated 09.01.2013, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner was recruited as Grade-II Constable on 13.8.1979 and promoted as Head Constable in the year 2001. The Writ Petitioner was placed under suspension in proceeding, dated 17.10.2005 on account of the complaint made by one Smt. Revathi in respect of the allegation of payment and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 1,000/- for registering a criminal complaint. Consequent to the order of suspension, the service of the Writ Petitioner was retained under 53C (1) of the Fundamental Rules. A criminal case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing in Special C.C. No. 57 of 2012. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal on 4.4.2012. Therefore, the respondents ought to have allowed the Writ Petitioner to retire from service. This apart, another disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was also arising in T.D.P. No. 22 of 2009. The charges before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings are in respect of allegation of disproportionate wealth acquired by the Writ Petitioner during the relevant period. However, in respect of the present Writ Petition, the order of suspension and the charge-memo are under challenge. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the charge-memo was issued belatedly and therefore, the same is to be quashed. In other words, the allegation was pertaining to the year 2005 and the charge-memo was issued in the year 2013 and therefore, there is a delay of about 7 1/2 years and on that ground also, the charges are to be quashed. Relying on the ground of delay, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that even after retirement, the authorities had taken time to issue charge-memo.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the Writ Petitioner was not allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he was placed under suspension in proceeding dated 27.09.2011. Further, a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 10 of 2005 under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No doubt, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal. However, mere acquittal on benefit of doubt cannot constitute a ground for the Writ Petitioner to escape from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In other words, acquittal is not a bar for proceeding with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Departmental Disciplinary proceedings and criminal case are different and distinct. The standard of proof required for the criminal case is high and the person can be acquitted if the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, no such strong proof is required for the purpose of punishing an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Preponderance of probabilities are enough to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. This being the distinctive characters of the criminal case and disciplinary proceedings, this Court is also of an opinion that mere an order of acquittal will not exonerate a Government employee from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.