Madras High Court
T. Nagarajan vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2012
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23-07-2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO.3731 OF 2012 and M.P.No.1 OF 2012 T. Nagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board, Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Principal Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN), Madurai 625 002. 4. The Director of Postal Services, O/o. The Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN), Madurai 625 002. 5. Senior Superintendent of Posts, Ramanathapuram Division, Ramanathapuram 623 501. 6. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of 6th respondent pertaining to his order which is made in O.A.No.1048 of 2010, dated 15.4.2011 and quash the same consequent to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Malaichamy For Respondents 1to5 : Mr.M. Vaidyanathan - - - O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. VENUGOPAL, J) The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition as against the order dated 15.4.2011 in O.A.No.1048 of 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"). The Petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet by 5th Respondent on 21.4.1997 with an allegation that while he was serving as a Sub Postmaster at Ervadi for the period from 22.7.1992 to 23.6.1996, he had accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- from Smt. Thasoon Beevi. However, the Petitioner had not brought the said amount into the PO Accounts of the individual and further withdrew the amount standing in the name of M. Syed Ishaq without his knowledge and withdrawn the amount standing in the name of one M. Ramaiah without his knowledge, thereby he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as per Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner / Applicant denied the charges levelled against him. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted. Finally, the Petitioner / Applicant was dismissed from service by means of an order dated 31.7.1999. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal, the Petitioner / Applicant projected an Appeal before 4th respondent, which, ultimately ended in rejection by means of an order dated 03.3.1999. Even the Revision projected by the Petitioner / Applicant as against the dismissal of the appellate order, proved futile.
2. It is not in dispute that against the Petitioner / Applicant a criminal complaint was filed and in the criminal case he was convicted by the trial court in respect of Charges under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of IPC in C.C.No.3 of 2001. In the judgment delivered on 01.9.2005, the Petitioner / Applicant was held guilty and he was convicted for a period of 3 years coupled with a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of 3 months, simple imprisonment under Section 409 IPC., etc..
3. As against the judgment delivered in C.C.No.3 of 2001, dated 01.9.2005, passed by the Criminal Court, the Petitioner / Applicant filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram and the said appeal was allowed, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner by means of a judgment dated 12.4.2006 giving him the benefit of doubt. Subsequently, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected as per order dated 21.5.2003.
4. The petitioner made a representation dated 24.7.2006 praying for his reinstatement in service, which also came to be rejected.
5. It is worthwhile to recall the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954 SCR 1150), wherein the question was if a simultaneous criminal prosecution, as well as, departmental action was not barred by the principles of double jeopardy within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the criminal prosecution and the departmental action are two different process and the departmental proceedings does not involve any investigation of any crime and therefore there was no question of subjecting the employee to double jeopardy.
6. We aptly point out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Bahadur Singh v. Brij Nath (AIR 1969 SC 30), wherein it is observed as follows :-
"An enquiry by a domestic tribunal, in good faith in exercise of powers statutorily vested in it, (in this case, under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (2 of 1921) and the Regulations framed thereunder), into the charges of misconduct against an employee does not amount to contempt of court merely because an inquiry into the same charges is pending before a civil or a criminal court."
7. Also, in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"Moreover, the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different."
8. Therefore, it is clear that as the departmental proceedings and criminal trial operate in two different areas, the employer / State is not precluded from holding departmental proceedings simultaneously with criminal prosecution.
9. The nature and scope of criminal case are certainly different from the departmental proceedings. According to the Petitioner / Applicant, the departmental proceedings are not concerned with the aspects of criminal law and the lack of integrity and devotion to duty do not fall within the ambit of the criminal case. The case of the Department is that the Petitioner / Applicant committed an act of misappropriation of Government money to an extent of Rs.5,500/- by forging the signatures of the depositors in the Postal Accounts. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner / Applicant had denied the charges levelled against him, an enquiry was held. In the enquiry, the depositors were summoned and they were examined as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. In the departmental enquiry, though the Petitioner / Applicant was provided with an adequate opportunity to take part in the enquiry and cross-examine the witnesses, he had not chosen to avail the opportunity for the reasons best known to him. As such, one cannot find fault with the conduct of enquiry in the domestic enquiry proceedings and we do not find any material irregularity or patent illegality with regard to the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner / Applicant to state that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner known to law. Even during the course of preliminary inquiry, the Petitioner / Applicant had admitted the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, he refuted the same by taking a plea that the statement was obtained by force, which was nothing but an afterthought.
10. With regard to the plea that the charges levelled against the Petitioner / Applicant in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case are one and the same, it is to be pointed out that the enquiry in the departmental enquiry is for not adhering to Rule 31 & 33 of Post Office Manual and Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964; whereas the charges levelled against the Petitioner / Applicant in the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2001 are under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of IPC. There is no doubt that before the trial court, the Petitioner / Applicant was initially convicted and later on he was acquitted in appeal by the Appellate Court based on the reason that the Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory could not render his conclusive decision as to the finger prints seen in the withdrawal slip. In the departmental proceedings, the Petitioner / Applicant was not charged for any offence under the Indian Penal Code like criminal breach of trust, forgery etc.. As such, the charges levelled against the Petitioner / Applicant in the departmental proceedings as compared to that of the criminal proceedings are not similar / identical. Moreover, the Petitioner / Applicant is a Senior Postal Assistant and as such he cannot feign ignorance and escape from the predicament of facing the departmental action.
11. It is well established principle of law that the proof required in a departmental proceedings is only that of 'preponderance of probability' and not proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is required to be proved in criminal cases. As stated already, the witnesses / depositors Smt. Thasoon Beevi and M. Ramaiah before the departmental enquiry have clearly deposed about the involvement/ complicity of the Petitioner / Applicant in making the entries in pass book as if the amounts were withdrawn. The fact of the matter is that the amounts were not paid to the aforesaid depositors. As such, the writ petitioner has no case on merits.
12. On going through the order passed by the Tribunal we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has taken into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has assessed the facts and circumstances of the case properly and also in a real proper perspective. We do not find any error with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in dismissing the Original Application. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(E.D.R.,J) (M.V.,J)
23.07.2012
dpk
To
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Member (Personnel)
Postal Services Board,
Government of India,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Principal Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Postmaster General,
Southern Region (TN),
Madurai 625 002.
4. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o. The Postmaster General,
Southern Region (TN),
Madurai 625 002.
5. Senior Superintendent of Posts,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram 623 501.
6. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai 600 104.
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J
and
M. VENUGOPAL, J
dpk
ORDER IN
WP.No.3731/2012
23-07-2012