SHAIK KASIM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CHINGLEPUT DN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting and important question arises in this writ proceeding, upon which I find that, though there is no paucity of authorities, the central principle has not been analysed or discussed at any length in any of the decisions cited before me. The problem involved is whether, when a Criminal Court acquits a government servant upon grave charges involving offences under the Penal Code, and the acquittal is not upon some collateral ground, such as the absence of due sanction or a technical plea of defence, but substantially on the merits, a Domestic tribunal, such as a higher authority exercising disciplinary jurisdiction, would be justified in disregarding the acquittal altogether, or in recording a conclusion inconsistent with the acquittal, and finding the Government servant guilty of the identical charges, upon identical facts. The matter arises against the following background of established facts.

(2.) THE petitioner became a servant of the Government of India in the Posts and telegraphs Department in 1936. From the year 1956, he was serving as Sub postmaster at various places. On 9-3-1959, while he was serving at Arni, he received a notice with regard to ten charges framed against him. It is important, for our purpose, to scrutinise the substance of those charges. Charges 1 and 4 to 10 related to irregularities, mostly of a subsidiary character; charge 4, which appears to be the most serious, related to alleged incorrect entries in and attendance register from 8-1-1959 to 14-1-1959, regarding the permanent E. D. D. A. Charges 2 and 3 were very serious, taken together, and it is not disputed that upon the facts, which formed the basis of those charges, the Departmental authorities gave a complaint to the police to the effect that the writ petitioner was guilty of offences under Ss. 409, 467 and 471 I. P. C. The petitioner alleges that he took up the stand that he should be first prosecuted in the Criminal Court, and that the departmental authorities should abide by the decision of the criminal court. But, actually, the disciplinary enquiry was not held in abeyance. However, the petitioner was ultimately prosecuted in the sessions Court, Chingleput, under those sections, and acquitted in respect of those charges by the judgment of the court dated 11-10-1960.

(3.) AS far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, they went according to routine, and the explanation of the delinquent officer was obtained and an enquiry held. On 23-1-1960, by order of the Superintendent of Post Offices first respondent) the petitioner was dismissed from service. Charges 1, 4 and 10 were held not proved; it is pertinent here to note that charge 4 was the most serious of the subsidiary irregularities alleged. Charges 2, 3 and 5 to 9 were held proved. Under the Central Civil (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal, and in April 1960 the director of Postal Services (second respondent) dismissed the appeal. A petition to the Director General of Posts and telegraphs, New Delhi, also failed. The petitioner drew the attention of the authorities to the fact that with regard to charges 2 and 3, which were grave, he had been acquitted by the Sessions Court, of the criminal offences involved, on the very facts. The argument, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner (Sri Venugopal) might be put in the following form. The findings on charges 2 and 3 are bad, as there have been acquittals, on the substantial merits, on respect of those charges, by the Court of Session. In the face of those acquittals, a finding to the contrary by a domestic Tribunal would not be proper, and cannot be permitted to stand. With regard to the remaining established charges, namely, 5 to 9, they are minor misdemeanours altogether, assuming that they were rightly held proved, and that cannot possibly have led any authority to the inference that dismissal would be the appropriate punishment.