VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

544 DECISION - 252
of Police, Indore. He himself initiated the departmental inquiry. The
role of the accuser or the witness and of the Judge cannot be played
by one and the same person and it is futile to expect when these
roles are combined that the judge can hold the scales of justice even.
It is clear that the impugned order is in utter disregard of the principles
of natural justice.
(252)
(A) Departmental action and acquittal
Order of dismissal in a departmental inquiry for the
same charges of theft, on which he was acquitted
by criminal court on the ground that offence is not
proved beyond any reasonable doubt, is in order.
(B) Court jurisdiction
Where the delinquent officer admitted guilt in his
written statement, if cannot be said there was no
evidence nor acceptable evidence before the Inquiry
Officer, for the High Court to interfere with the findings.
N. Marimuthu vs. Transport Department, Madras,
1986(2) SLR MAD 560
The petitioner was employed as a foundary worker in the
Government Press. For the theft of mono-metal weighing 540 grams
worth Rs. 20, he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and
dismissed from service on 14-7-80. For the same offence, he was
prosecuted before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and
he was acquitted on 5-8-80, the Magistrate holding that the guilt was
not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Government allowed the
petitioner’s dismissal to stand, by its order dated 24-12-82. These
orders were sought to be quashed.
One of the arguments advanced by the petitioner before the
Madras High Court was that the Department ought to have awaited
the result of the court prosecution and that if that proceeding ended
in an acquittal, the Department ought to have accepted such acquittal
and dropped the departmental proceeding.