P.Kanagaraju v. Madurai Zone Madurai 7.2.The Superintending Engineer Theni Electricity Distribution circle Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.5845 of 2004andWPMP Nos.6833 of 2004 and 880 of 2007P.Kanagaraju.. Petitioner vs1.The Chief Engineer(Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Madurai Zone Madurai 7.2.The Superintending Engineer Theni Electricity Distribution circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Theni3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Theni.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling forthe records pursuant to the impugned order of punishment issued bythe 2nd respondent in Proc. Ku.No.U Ni A/NiP3/U3/Ko.Marai/A.No.290/02 dated 5.12.2002 and the appellate orderpassed by the first respondent in Memo No.1106/43/D1/2003.7 dated26.8.2003 and quash these orders and consequently direct therespondents to retain the petitioner in the post of Wiremanretrospectively with effect from 5.12.2002 with full monetarybenefits and other consequential service benefits.For Petitioner: Mr.S.M.SubramaniamFor Respondents: Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for TNEBORDERThis writ petition has been brought forth by the petitionerchallenging the order of the second respondent made in Proc. Ku.No.UNi A/Ni P3/U3/Ko.Marai/A.No.290/02 dated 5.12.2002 and also theappellate order passed by the first respondent in MemoNo.1106/43/D1/2003.7, dated 26.8.2003, and consequentially directthe respondents to retain him in the post of Wireman retrospectivelywith effect from 5.12.2002 with full monetary benefits and otherconsequential service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. Theaffidavit in support of the petition is perused.3.From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner and the averments in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition, it could be seen that the petitioner was workingas Wireman in the Office of the Junior Engineer, Erasakka Naickanur,Theni District. A criminal complaint was lodged against himalleging that on 11.10.2001, he was in a drunken mood, and he gotinto the Office and damaged the goods and other things in theoffice. Pursuant thereto, a case came to be registered and alsotaken on file in C.C.No.74 of 2002. On the said allegations, acharge memo was also issued by the department. Simultaneously,departmental proceedings were initiated, and charges were framed.The explanation was tendered by him. Not satisfied, an enquiry wasconducted pursuant thereto, and he was found guilty as per thecharges levelled against him. He was given a punishment ofreversion to the post of Helper and reduction in the scale of payfor 3 years. Originally, he filed a writ petition before this Courtchallenging the suspension; but, it was dismissed, and the criminalcase after the full trial, ended in acquittal. Subsequently, hepreferred an appeal before the first respondent in respect of thepunishment, and it was also dismissed. Under the circumstances, thiswrit petition has been brought forth.4.The main contention put forth by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner, is that in the instant case, while the criminalproceedings were initiated, the departmental enquiry should havebeen kept in abeyance; but, they have proceeded with the same andgave the punishment also; that subsequently, he was acquitted of thecharges by the criminal Court; that in the proceedings before thecriminal Court and before the department, the facts are exactly thesame; that once the criminal Court has also acquitted him of thecharges, consequently, he should be absolved from the chargeslevelled in the departmental proceedings also, but, not done so;that this has also not been considered by the appellate forum, andunder the circumstances, the punishment imposed on him, has got tobe quashed, and he has to be given all the benefits to which he isentitled to. In support of his contentions, the learned Counselrelied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in JT 1999 (2) SC456 (CAPT. M PAUL ANTHONY V. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. AND ANOTHER).5.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on theabove contentions. It is contended by him that in the instant case,the criminal Court has acquitted him giving benefit of doubt; but,that cannot be taken into account in the departmental proceedings,where he was given sufficient opportunity; that there weresufficient grounds to hold that he was guilty of the chargeslevelled against him; that under the circumstances, the order passedby the second respondent and subsequently affirmed by the firstrespondent, does not require any disturbance, and hence, the writpetition has got to be dismissed.6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made. 7.It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein wasoriginally serving as Wireman attached to the Junior Engineer'sOffice of the Electricity Board. There was an allegation madeagainst him that on 11.10.2001, he got into the Office in a drunkenmood, damaged the goods, caused mischief and also committed othercriminal acts. Following the same, a criminal case came to beregistered, and it was also taken on file in C.C.No.74 of 2002 bythe Judicial Magistrate concerned. On trial, he was acquitted.After the alleged incident, a charge memo was issued by thedepartment, calling for explanations. He also faced thedepartmental enquiry, where he was found guilty, and he was givenpunishment. After the imposition of the punishment, he challengedthe same before the first respondent, and it was also affirmed. 8.This Court is of the considered opinion, after going throughthe materials available and hearing the submissions made, that it isa fit case where the punishment imposed on him, has got to bequashed for more reasons than one. In the instant case, there wasan incident on 11.10.2001. Immediately, a criminal case wasregistered, and it was taken on file in C.C.No.74/2002. He was alsoacquitted on trial. There was another enquiry made departmentally.It was also on the same facts. This Court is able to notice thatboth the facts which were the basis for the criminal case before theCourt in C.C.No.74/2002 and for the department enquiry, were exactlythe same. Under the circumstances, the department should havewaited till the disposal of the criminal proceedings, but not doneso. Further, the criminal Court has found him not guilty. Now, thecontention put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondents isthat he has been acquitted giving benefit of doubt; but, that cannotbe taken into consideration in the departmental enquiry. Now, atthis juncture, it remains to be stated that all those facts whichformed the basis for the departmental enquiry, were exactly broughtto the notice of the criminal Court, and that Court has found thatthey have not been proved, and it has acquitted him. Once thepetitioner has been found not guilty by the criminal Court, thedepartmental enquiry with haste, was proceeded. When the matter wasbrought to the notice of the appellate forum, it has lost sight ofthe same. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner, it is a fit case where the decision cited by him andreported in JT 1999 (2) SC 456 (CAPT. M PAUL ANTHONY V. BHARAT GOLDMINES LTD. AND ANOTHER), is squarely applicable, wherein the SupremeCourt has held thus:"If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case arebased on identical and similar set of facts and the chargein the criminal case against the delinquent employee is ofa grave nature which involves complicated questions of lawand fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmentalproceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case."9.In the instant case, it has not been done. Once theallegations made against him, were found to be not proved by a Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of criminal law and that too, in a particular case where thedepartmental proceedings were also going on, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that it is a fit case where the punishment hasgot to be quashed. Accordingly, the orders of the second respondentand the first respondent are quashed. 10.In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The Chief Engineer(Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Madurai Zone Madurai 7.2.The Superintending Engineer Theni Electricity Distribution circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Theni3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Theni+1cc to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate Sr 57009+1cc to M/s.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate Sr 56609AD (CO)km/17.9.WP No.5845 of 2004