Judgment:
ORAL ORDER:
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)
Heard Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This application is filed challenging the charge memo dated 08.06.2006. But no interim order was passed by this Tribunal and this Tribunal allowed the department to proceed with the inquiry, but directed not to pass final orders till the filing of the reply. But thereafter reply has been filed. The applicant made several contentions in this application. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that this is a clear case where the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul Anthony's case and GM Tank's case are very much applicable as the charges considered by the criminal court and the charges framed by the department and also witness adduced in the departmental case and in the criminal case are one and the same. He further contended that the applicant got acquitted in the criminal case on merits and therefore, it is not open for the department to again proceed with the departmental inquiry against the applicant.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was not acquitted on merits and he was acquitted on technical grounds and that the trial court itself made an observation to the effect that the applicant is being acquitted not because he is innocent or he has not done anything, but because of the doubts that are created and the prosecution failed and therefore, the department is not prohibited from initiating departmental proceedings against the applicant as the charges are very grave and they relate to the discharge of the duties. He further submitted that now the disciplinary inquiry has been completed and final orders are to be passed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, there is no need for this Tribunal to interfere at this stage and that the applicant will always be at liberty to challenge the final orders in case he is aggrieved of the final orders and that the contentions raised herein may be raised in his representation against the inquiry officer's report. He further submitted that the applicant filed another O.A. No. 296/2007 claiming pay and allowances during the suspension period and this Tribunal disposed of the same holding that the claim of the applicant is premature and also directed the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders relating to pay and allowances for the period for which the applicant was not on duty at the time of passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are at the concluding stage, we do not want to interfere at this stage. But, however, we have not expressed our opinion about the merits of the case. We hope that the respondents would consider all the contentions raised in the present application which may be raised by the applicant in his representation against the inquiry officer's report and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the applicant is given liberty to approach this Tribunal in case his contentions have not been accepted and he is imposed with penalty.
5. With these observations, the application is disposed of with no order as to costs.