P. Jegadeesan vs The Inspector of Police

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C Nos. 100 & 101/2010, respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Musiri and the consequential further proceedings, as against the Petitioner.

The case of the Petitioner is that he is the Accused No. 3 in the Criminal case and charge-sheeted Employee No.5 in the Departmental proceedings. According to the Petitioner, an Officer was appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, to find out large-scale misappropriation of Cooperative Society viz., Tholurpatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society With regard to misappropriation of fund and falsification of documents, the Deputy Registrar was appointed and he submitted a Report on 16.12.2009 holding that the irregularities and misappropriation have been committed by one salesman Pandian and as the Petitioner herein was incharge of total administration, he cannot be fixed with any responsibility or liability. Since the offences have been made under Sections 408, 409, 477(a) read with 34 of IPC, the Department also initiated Disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the charges are not proved.

Not satisfying with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the finding was disagreed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority gave a clean chit to the Petitioner, as the charges in the Departmental proceedings has not been proved. According to the Petitioner, there were six items of charges for which, the Deputy Registrar was appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and in all the findings, there is 110 adverse Report against the Petitioner He further contended that when the Report of the Deputy Registrar under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is in all the favour and that Departmental proceedings have also come to an end in his favour, the purpose of proceeding with C.C Nos 100 & 101 of 2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, is not going to help the Department and the proceedings if continued, he will be facing great hardship.

The learned Additional Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the Departmental proceedings and the Criminal proceedings are independent of each other and the Petitioner''s contentions if accepted means that this Court is accepting that there is a double jeopardy. He further stated that since the Petitioner is overall incharge, he cannot escape from the responsibility and the liability and he is liable to face the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, as serious charges framed against the Petitioner under Sections 408, 409, 477(a) read with 34 of I.P.C. The learned Government Advocate vehemently contended that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in number of cases had held that both the Departmental proceedings and the Criminal proceedings can go on independently and the findings of the Departmental proceedings will not have baring on the Criminal proceedings.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on records.

It is not in dispute that there was a large scale of misappropriation in the Cooperative Society, for which, several persons have been identified as Accused and one such person is the Petitioner, who is A3 in the Calendar Case, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri. It is not a private dispute between the two persons, which ultimately lands up before the Judicial Magistrate. A serious offence has been committed in the Cooperative Society for which, the Deputy Registrar, who is an Officer from the Government, had been appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act to go into the irregularities and he has given a finding that the Petitioner was over all incharge but, he cannot be blamed. That apart, in the Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner, the Petitioner has come out with clean hands and hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the findings of the Departmental proceedings may not have a baring on the charges framed against the Petitioner in the Criminal case will have no baring. It is otherwise, in case, a person is acquitted in a Criminal case, it is not a bar for the Department to proceed against an Employee or an Officer departmentally. If an Employee is acquitted of the charges in the Departmental proceedings, more so, in this case, the proceedings under Rule 1 7(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been decided in favour of the Petitioner, the Cooperative Society, being a wing of the Government, cannot be allowed to contend that the findings of the Departmental proceedings will not have a bearing in the Criminal case, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.

From the narration of the events, more particularly, from Report of the Deputy Registrar, under Section 81 it is clear that the provision of Sections 477 (a) & 409 of I.P.C., is not attracted, as there is no iota of evidence under Section 81-Report that there was Criminal breach of trust on the part of the Petitioner and that there was a fraud committed by him, which helped the other. Accused to commit the so called falsification of accounts, fabrication of documents, misappropriation of fluids, etc. The Supreme Court, in a decision in P. S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"17. At the outset, we may point out that the learned Counsel for the Respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a Criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the Departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the Departmental proceedings and in the Criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the Departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the Appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a Departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the Reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the Appellant in Criminal proceedings."

From the above it is clear that the ultimate result of the Departmental proceedings has to be accepted, there is no need to proceed further against the Accused in the Criminal proceedings. Hence, I am of the considered view that the findings of the Departmental Enquiry may not be admissible cannot tie correct and I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and I allow the Criminal Original Petition, as prayed for. This Order does not preclude the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri from proceeding with other Accused in accordance with law as they are not parties before this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.