Madras High Court
P.Allimuthu vs The District Forest Officer on 8 September, 2022
WP No.42078 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08-09-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.42078 of 2016
And
WMP No.35992 of 2016
P.Allimuthu .. Petitioner
vs.
The District Forest Officer,
Tiruvallur Forest Division,
Tiruvallur,
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
disburse the Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and
Encashment of Unearned Leave on Private Affairs to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar,
Government Advocate.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.42078 of 2016
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondent to disburse the Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned
Leave and Encashment of Unearned Leave on Private Affairs to the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner was working as Forester and he was arrested
by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department Police and a criminal case
was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Simultaneously, the departmental disciplinary proceedings were also
initiated against the writ petitioner.
3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the criminal case
ended with an order of conviction and the writ petitioner preferred a criminal
appeal and the said criminal appeal is pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner
was dismissed from service as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules based on
the conviction on 17.11.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.42078 of 2016
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
in the event of an order of acquittal in the criminal appeal, the Department
has to conduct an enquiry in the the departmental disciplinary proceedings,
since the order of dismissal was passed based on the order of conviction.
5. The principle in this regard is that the order of an acquittal in
a criminal case, is not a bar for the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Even in case, an employee was acquitted in a criminal case, the Department
is empowered to conduct an enquiry and impose the punishment under the
Discipline and Appeal Rules.
6. The criminal and departmental disciplinary proceedings are
entirely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal
trial that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service, when one has
been found guilty in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
7. This being the principles settled in a recent judgment by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.42078 of 2016
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Phool
Singh [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735] pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 5930 of
2022 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11195 of 2021 dated 02.09.2022, this
Court is of the considered the opinion that the petitioner, as of now, is not
entitled for any relief. However, the Provident Fund Contribution or
otherwise for which a dismissed employee is entitled, shall be settled, if
already not settled.
8. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
08-09-2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
To
The District Forest Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.42078 of 2016
Tiruvallur Forest Division,
Tiruvallur,
Tiruvallur District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.42078 of 2016
WP 42078 of 2016
08-09-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
