The Director of Medical vs K. Ragothaman

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Heard Mr. V. Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. G. Sankaran, learned counsel for the respondent and by consent, this writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.4.2010 made in W.P. No. 14748 of 2010, wherein the learned single Judge set aside the order issued by the first appellant dated 08.9.2008, which was confirmed by the second appellant in G.O.(D) No. 623, Health and Welfare Department (K1), dated 27.5.2009.

The facts of the case, as could be culled out from the materials placed in this appeal, are as follows:

The respondent, while working at Aravakurichi Government Hospital, was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 on 03.7.2000, containing two charges relating to embezzlement of Government money and non maintenance of Register and non-recovery of advances. A criminal case was registered against the respondent, pursuant to a complaint and the case ended in acquittal. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was placed under suspension. Enquiry was conducted and a finding of guilt was recorded on 28.10.2012. Final order was passed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, by the first respondent on 08.9.2008. Appeal was filed before the Government, which was rejected on 27.8.2009, and the said order was challenged in a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, against which the respondent preferred this writ appeal.

We have perused the charges levelled against the respondent, namely charges 1 and 2. Charge 1 relates to embezzlement of Government money and Charge 2 relates to non-maintenance of registers and non-recovery of advances ordered to be recovered. In the explanation submitted to the said charge memo, it was stated by the respondent that after he found that the bag was missing from the Medical Officer''s house, he searched for the bag throughout the way and then, he rushed to his native place without informing either the police or the Medical Officer, apprehending arrest and on being suspended from service, a sum of Rs. 18,361/- said to be embezzled by him, was adjusted from the subsistence allowance payable to him.

It is not in dispute that the respondent had accepted the charges levelled against him and a sum of Rs. 18,361/- embezzled by him had been adjusted from the subsistence allowance payable to him. Though the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him only after enquiry, the respondent was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. It is well settled in law that acquittal in a criminal case has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings, as the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove the charge in disciplinary proceedings and strict proof is required for recording conviction in criminal case. The Supreme Court in The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vs. P. Kata Rao, and in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sankar Ghosh, clearly explained the said position. In para. (16) of the latter decision, it is held thus:

"16. We indicate that the respondent could not lay his hand to any rule or regulation applicable to the Police Force stating that once an employee has been acquitted by a Criminal Court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service, despite all the disciplinary proceedings. In otherwise there is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a Criminal Court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Criminal Court are the same. On this aspect, reference may be made to para. 27 of the judgment in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, , which reads as under:-

"27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honorably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules."

Hence, the order of punishment passed after the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case is justified and the same cannot be interfered. Further, the respondent also accepted the allegation in his explanation submitted. The punishment imposed is also extremely lenient and the respondent is not justified in challenging the order.

In such circumstances, we are of the firm view that the learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the order of minor punishment imposed by the first appellant, confirmed by the second appellant in appeal. The writ appeal is allowed. It is made clear that after the currency of punishment, the respondent is entitled to get promotion as per law. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is closed.