Madras High Court
Unknown vs Narayanamoorthy .. 1St on 4 December, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD).No.218 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD).No.218 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.1501 of 2020
0.184, A.K.L Cooperative Stores Ltd.,
Mini Super Market,
Arumuganeri – 628 202,
Tuticorin District,
The Special Officer. .. Appellant/1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Narayanamoorthy .. 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruchendur,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi. .. 2nd and 3rd Respondents/
Respondents 2 & 3
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.
6152 of 2011 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.218 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For R-1 : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai
For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The Writ Appeal has been instituted against the order dated
14.11.2019 passed in W.P.(MD).No.6152 of 2011.
2. The writ appellant is the first respondent in the Writ proceedings.
The first respondent was an employee of the appellant Co-operative Stores
Limited. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
first respondent by framing charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the
disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted domestic
enquiry. The first respondent employee remained ex parte and the Enquiry
Officer submitted his final report, which was accepted by the disciplinary
authority. Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on
26.11.2008. A criminal case was registered simultaneously against the first
respondent in Crime No.354 of 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Admittedly, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal.
However, the departmental disciplinary proceedings was conducted by
following the procedures as contemplated and by conducting a domestic
enquiry. The first respondent filed a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Revisional Authority confirmed
the punishment of dismissal. Thus, the first respondent preferred review
under Section 154 of the Act and the punishment was finally confirmed by
the Reviewing Authority also. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a Writ
proceedings challenging the order of dismissal.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the issues and set aside the
punishment of dismissal on the sole ground that the writ petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case by order of acquittal dated 07.02.2019. Thus,
the Society preferred the present Writ Appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent strenuously contended
that the criminal case was decided on merits and the charges both in the
criminal case as well as in the departmental disciplinary proceedings are one
and the same and therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in setting aside
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the order of dismissal based on the order of acquittal granted by the
competent Court of law.
6. A question arises whether acquittal in a criminal Court could be a
ground to seek exoneration from the departmental proceedings. The
principles are now settled by the Courts. An order of acquittal in a criminal
case cannot be an automatic exoneration from the departmental disciplinary
proceedings. The procedures contemplated both in criminal case and
departmental proceedings are distinct and different. Strict provision is
required to convict a person in a criminal case. However, preponderance of
probabilities are enough under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Therefore,
mere acquittal in a criminal case is not a ground to grant exoneration from
the departmental proceedings and even a moral turpitude and a misdirection
would be sufficient to punish an employee under the Service Rules in force.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order of
punishment of dismissal merely on the ground that the first respondent
employee was acquitted in a criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. More so, in the present case, the order of dismissal was not passed
based on the criminal proceedings, but an independent domestic enquiry
was conducted by framing charges and the report of the Enquiry Officer was
accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter, punishment of
dismissal was imposed. Further, the revisional authority as well as the
reviewing authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act
confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service, taking note of the
proved charges against the first respondent. This being the factum, setting
aside the order of dismissal is not in consonance with the provisions settled
in the matter of disciplinary proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.11.2019 passed in W.P.
(MD).No.6152 of 2011 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
04.12.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruchendur,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
04.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
