Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental punishment based on preponderance of probabilities.

The respondent, a Grade II Police Constable in the Armed Reserve, Greater Chennai Police, was proceeded against under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

The charges alleged that, on 26 November 2003, he fraudulently represented white powder as heroin and attempted to cheat and extort money, and that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty.

A criminal case was also registered against him; he was acquitted by the criminal court on the ground of benefit of doubt on 4 May 2012.

In the departmental enquiry, four summonses were served on him, but he did not appear.

The Enquiry Officer consequently conducted an ex parte enquiry, examined three witnesses, considered five documents, and found the charges proved.

After considering the respondent’s further representation, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service.

The Single Judge allowed the respondent’s writ petition, principally relying on his acquittal in the criminal case.

The State preferred the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the pendency, and subsequent acquittal, of the criminal case barred the State from continuing or concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

Whether the ex parte departmental enquiry was vitiated for violation of natural justice when the respondent failed to appear despite receiving four summonses.

Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct of a police constable serving in a uniformed force.

The Court applied Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which authorises departmental action for misconduct.

The principle that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct, operate in different fields, and are governed by different standards of proof.

The rule that a criminal acquittal, particularly an acquittal on benefit of doubt, does not automatically exonerate a delinquent employee in departmental proceedings.

While criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental misconduct may be established on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an ex parte enquiry is permissible where adequate notice and reasonable opportunities to participate have been provided but not utilised.

In judicial review under Article 226, the Court examines the decision-making process and procedural legality, not the merits of the disciplinary decision as an appellate authority.

It also applied the proportionality principle in the context of discipline required in uniformed services.

The Court held that the criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry concerned different legal processes and standards of proof.

The respondent’s acquittal on benefit of doubt therefore did not, by itself, invalidate the departmental finding that he had engaged in conduct involving fraudulent representation of white powder as heroin.

The departmental authorities were also not required to defer the enquiry until conclusion of the criminal case, particularly since departmental witnesses and documents were available.

The respondent had acknowledged four summonses fixing dates for the oral enquiry but failed to attend; hence, the Enquiry Officer was justified in proceeding ex parte.

The finding of guilt was supported by the examination of three witnesses and production of five documents, and there was no procedural violation or perversity warranting interference under Article 226.

Given the respondent’s position as a police constable in a uniformed service, the Court considered the misconduct grave and held that leniency would undermine discipline and morale.

It held that the criminal acquittal did not bar or nullify the departmental proceedings, that the ex parte enquiry was valid because adequate opportunities had been afforded, and that removal from service was not disproportionate considering the gravity of the proved misconduct and the respondent’s status in the uniformed police force.

The Single Judge’s order dated 14 July 2021 in WP No. 16230 of 2018 was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.