The Secretary, Vallalar Gurukulam Higher Secondary School vs District Educational Officer and G. Anbarasan

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.4.2000.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The writ petitioner was a teacher in Vallalar Gurukulam Higher Secondary School, Vadalur. He was implicated in a criminal case and

suspended on account of that criminal case. However, admittedly, no departmental proceeding was instituted against him nor any departmental

charge memo served on him. The only proceeding against him was the criminal case.

Subsequently he has been acquitted in the criminal case. He filed the writ petition alleging that he could not be kept under suspension for more

than four months. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but has stated that so long as the petitioner is kept under suspension, he

has to be paid full salary and the school should review the suspension order. Aggrieved, the Management of the school has filed this writ appeal.

When a misconduct is committed by an employee, the authorities have the option to take two kinds of proceedings against him. Firstly a criminal

proceeding if he is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, and in addition they can also take a departmental proceeding against him by

issuing a departmental charge memo. Even if the employee is acquitted in the criminal case, he can yet be found guilty in the departmental

proceedings. - This is because the Standard of proof in the two proceedings is different. In criminal proceedings, `the standard of proof'' is proof

beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, standard of proof is like in a civil case i.e. balance of probabilities.

Hence it was open to the school Management to take both kinds of proceedings against the teacher concerned, but it did not choose to institute

departmental proceedings against him or issue him any departmental charge memo. The result was that there was only one proceeding against the

teacher i.e. criminal proceeding in which he has been acquitted. Once a person is acquitted in a criminal case, it has to be deemed that he never

committed that offence. This is because every judgment operates retrospectively unless expressly made prospectively, unlike a legislation which

normally operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospectively. Since the employee has been acquitted in the criminal case that judgment

will operate retrospectively and it has to be deemed that the teacher concerned was never guilty of that offence. Consequently, he is entitled to his

salary for the period of his unemployment and he is entitled to reinstatement. We see no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. The

position may have been different if disciplinary proceedings had also been instituted against the respondent, but that was not done.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that another teacher has been employed in the place of the second respondent and he has been

getting salary. In our opinion, if there is only one vacancy, then obviously the new teacher has to go out and the second respondent has to come in

again because his suspension was clearly illegal as it has to be deemed that he was never guilty of the criminal offence.

In view of the above, we find no force in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 11740 of 2000

for stay is dismissed.