Telangana High Court
A.Srinivasulu vs The State Of Telangana on 21 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.31791 of 2023
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.Chinna Pochaiah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs Department for respondent No.1.
Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents in not dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case in C.C.No.44 of 2021 dated 17.02.2023.
::2::
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender on 12.06.2000 and thereafter was promoted as Field Assistant. On 23.11.2019, the petitioner was working as Field Assistant in IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate's Court. On that day itself, a trap was laid by the Anti- Corruption Bureau and the petitioner was found accepting bribe for doing an official favour.
4. Thereupon the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a case against the petitioner namely Crime No.32/ACB-RCT- RRR/2019 for the offence under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 23.11.2019. On 22.01.2020, the petitioner was issued Articles of Charges, in which following charge was framed against the petitioner:
"That Mr.Akarapu Srinivasulu, Field Assistant, Bench Clerk in the I AJCJ-cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Kukatpally, R.R.District, has demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from Sri S.Shiva Kumar, Advocate, as a reward for already produced bail petitions before the Presiding Officer in Cr.Nos.169/2019 and 216/2019 and was trapped and caught red-
::3::
handed by the ACB Officials on 23.11.2019 in the Section of I AJCJ-cum-IX Addl.
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Kukatpally, R.R.District and a case was registered against him in Cr.No.32/RCT-RRR/2019, U/s. 7(b) of P.C.Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The Phenolphthalein test conducted over both the hand fingers and inner portion of front left side shirt pocket of the individual, yielded positive results and the tainted amount of Rs.2000/- was recovered from the individual. Mr.Akarapu Srinivasulu, Field Assistant, was placed under suspension, vide District Court's Order Dis.No.7819/2019 dated 02.12.2019, as the individual was under Judicial Custody for more than 48 hours. The individual, by abusing his official position and taking undue advantage has indulged in corruption, thereby behaved in a manner highly un-becoming of a Government servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity, loyalty, which acts, if proved or, established would amount to grave misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
5. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.02.2023 in the criminal case namely C.C.No.44 of 2021, which was executed against him. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.10.2023, in which the petitioner sought dropping of the disciplinary proceedings ::4::
against him on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case namely C.C.No.44 of 2021. The aforesaid representation failed to evoke any response. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of an order dated 17.02.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7762 of 2022, the proceedings in the departmental enquiry were stayed till conclusion of the criminal case namely C.C.No.44 of 2021. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges in the departmental enquiry as well as the criminal case are similar and therefore, once the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner cannot be subjected to departmental enquiry.
7. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. T.Venkatapathi 1.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the scope of the 1 1999 (1) ALT 767 (DB) ::5::
disciplinary enquiry as well as the criminal case are different and therefore in the facts of the case, the departmental enquiry can proceed against the petitioner.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
10. It is a cardinal principle of law that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standards of proof in both the cases are different and proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives (See Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay 2). In State of Karnataka v. Umesh 3, the Supreme Court once again held that the rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. Similar view was 2 (2022) 2 SCC 696 3 (2022) 6 SCC 563 ::6::
taken by Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. P.Zadenga 4 and in paragraph 17.2, it was held as under:
"17.2 In Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. C. Nagaraju [(2019) 10 SCC 367] it was observed:
"9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations.
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. [Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764] 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 PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. [State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417]".
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1240 ::7::
11. Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the employer is well within its discretion to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
However, an endeavour shall be made to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six (06) months from today.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 21.11.2023 Note: Issue C.C. today.
(B/o.) KL