Madras High Court
Thenmozhi (Ms.) vs Chairman And Managing Director Of ... on 8 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)IILLJ499MAD, (2005)1MLJ715
Author: Markandey Katju
Bench: Markandey Katju, D. Murugesan
JUDGMENT Markandey Katju, C.J.
1. These writ appeals are filed against the common impugned order dated December 11, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
2. Appellant's husband was employed in the respondent Corporation. He was charge-sheeted for stealing computers worth about Rs. 5 lakhs and, after an enquiry, in which he was given an opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed by order dated November 29, 1997, which was confirmed in appeal on February 12, 1998. The said appellate order dated February 12, 1998 became final. It appears that a criminal case was also simultaneously launched against the delinquent for the very same offence, in which he was acquitted on March 19, 2001.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant's husband has been acquitted in the criminal case, he should be held to be innocent of the charge levelled against him in the departmental proceedings and, consequently, the order of dismissal passed against him should be set aside and that he be deemed to have been reinstated into service with all attendant benefits. We cannot agree. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that on the same set of allegations or charges, a departmental proceeding as well as a criminal prosecution can be initiated against a delinquent employee. These two proceedings, though initiated on the very same set of facts, are independent proceedings and the outcome of the one will not have any bearing on the other. The standard of proof required in these two proceedings and the procedure is totally different. In the criminal prosecution, the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, whereas in the departmental proceedings the delinquency is to be proved by the pre-ponderance of evidence against the delinquent i.e. as in a civil case. Even if an employee is acquitted by the criminal Court, he can be found guilty in the departmental proceedings (vide Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Vidhya Varidh Mishra, 2004 (6) SCC 482 : 2004-III-LLJ-526.
4. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court observed at p. 527 of LLJ:
"10. Mr. Rao submitted that the respondent had been exonerated by the criminal Court. He submitted that the termination was only on the basis of his conviction. He submitted that as his conviction is set aside, the Courts below were right in reinstating the respondent. We are unable to accede to this submission. The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a criminal Court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal Court is not required in disciplinary proceeding. The respondent has not claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly. As the termination was based on findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the appellate Court exonerated the respondent was of no consequence."
5. Similarly, in Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr. v. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi, JT 2002 (1) SC (Supp.) 520, the Supreme Court observed:
"Departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can run simultaneously and departmental proceeding can also be initiated even after acquittal in a criminal proceeding particularly when the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is completely different from the standard of proof that is required to prove the delinquency of a Government servant in a departmental proceeding, the former being one of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the latter being one of preponderance of probability."
6. In view of the above mentioned settled legal position the appellant cannot contend that since her husband was acquitted by the criminal Court, he should be deemed to be innocent of the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceedings.
7. Moreover, the departmental proceedings became final by the appellate order dated February 12, 1998, which was never challenged. The order of dismissal was on the basis of the findings in the departmental enquiry. Thus, there is no force in the appeal.
8. The appeals are dismissed.