Madras High Court
P.Jegadeesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2014
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18221 of 2013 and Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18222 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 P.Jegadeesan ... Petitioner in both Crl.OPs. -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (CID), Tiruchirapalli (Ref: Crime No.05/2010) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant in both Crl.OPs. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Musiri Circle, Tiruchirapalli District. ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto complainant in both Crl.OPs. PRAYER IN BOTH CRL.OPS. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.Nos.100 and 101 /2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and quash the charge sheet and consequential further proceedings as against the petitioner. !For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :COMMON ORDER
The petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.100 and 101 /2010, respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and the consequential further proceedings, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the accused No.3 in the criminal case and charge sheeted employee No.5 in the departmental proceedings. According to the petitioner, an officer was appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, to find out large- scale misappropriation of Co-operative Society viz., Tholurpatti Primary Agricultural Cooperatiave Credit Society. With regard to misappropriation of fund and falsification of documents, the Deputy Registrar was appointed and he submitted a report on 16.12.2009 holding that the irregularities and misappropriation have been committed by one salesman Pandian and as the petitioner herein was incharge of total administration, he cannot be fixed with any responsibility or liability. Since the offences have been made under Sections 408, 409, 477(a) r/w 34 of IPC., the Department also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer came to a conclusion that the charges are not proved.
3. Not satisfying with the findings of the enquiry officer, the finding was disagreed by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and ultimately, the disciplinary authority gave a clean chit to the petitioner, as the charges in the departmental proceedings has not been proved. According to the petitioner, there were six items of charges for which, the Deputy Registrar was appointed under Section Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and in all the findings, there is no adverse report against the petitioner. He further contended that when the report of the Deputy Registrar under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is in his favour and that departmental proceedings have also come to an end in his favour, the purpose of proceeding with C.C.Nos.100 and 101 of 2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, is not going to help the department and the proceedings if continued, he will be facing great hardship.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are independent of each other and the petitioner's contentions if accepted means that this Court is accepting that there is a double jeopardy. He further stated that since the petitioner is overall incharge, he cannot escape from the responsibility and the liability and he is liable to face the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, as serious charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 408, 409, 477(a) r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Government Advocate vehemently contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases had held that both the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings can go on independently and the findings of the departmental proceedings will not have baring on the criminal proceedings.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on records.
6. It is not in dispute that there was a large scale of misappropriation in the Co-operative Society, for which, several persons have been identified as accused and one such person is the petitioner, who is A3 in the Calendar Case, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri. It is not a private dispute between the two persons, which ultimately lands up before the Judicial Magistrate. A serious offence has been committed in the Co-operative Society for which, the Deputy Registrar, who is an officer from the Government, had been appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, to go into the irregularities and he has given a finding that the petitioner was over all incharge but, he cannot be blamed. That apart, in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner has come out with clean hands and hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the findings of the departmental proceedings may not have a baring on the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case will have no baring. It is otherwise, in case, a person is acquitted in a criminal case, it is not a bar for the department to proceed against an employee or an officer departmentally. If an employee is acquitted of the charges in the departmental proceedings, more so, in this case, the proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been decided in favour of the petitioner, the Co-operative Society, being a wing of the Government, cannot be allowed to contend that the findings of the departmental proceedings will not have a baring in the criminal case, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.
7. From the narration of the events, more particularly, from report of the Deputy Registrar, under Section 81 it is clear that the provision of Sections 477(a) and 409 of IPC., is not attracted, as there is no iota of evidence under 81 report that there was criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioner and that there was a fraud committed by him, which helped the other accused to commit the so called falsification of accounts, fabrication of documents, misappropriation of funds etc. The Supreme Court, in a decision in P.S.Rajya Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996 (9) SCC 1). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"17. At the outset, we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings"
8. From the above it is clear that the ultimate result of the departmental proceedings has to be accepted, there is no need to proceed further against the accused in the criminal proceedings. Hence, I am of the considered view that the findings of the departmental enquiry may not be admissible cannot be correct and I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I allow the criminal Original Petition, as prayed for. This order does not preclude the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri from proceeding with other accused in accordance with law as they are not parties before this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.12.2014 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MPK To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Musiri
2.The Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (CID), Tiruchirapalli
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Musiri Circle, Tiruchirapalli District.
4.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
MPK Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18221 and 18222 of 2013 02.12.2014