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
