HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKER W.P. Nos. 19044, 19046, 19048 and 19051 of 2011 DATED: 20.07.2011 W.P. No. 19044 of 2011 Between: K.V.L. Narasimha Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. 2. The Commissioner of Police 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police 4. The Enquiry Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police 5. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal .. Respondents W.P. No. 19046 of 2011 Between: A. Jagadishwar Reddy .. Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. 2. The Commissioner of Police 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police 4. The Enquiry Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police 5. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal .. Respondents W.P. No. 19048 of 2011 Between: C. Gandhi Narayana .. Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. 2. The Commissioner of Police 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police 4. The Enquiry Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police 5. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal .. Respondents W.P. No. 19051 of 2011 Between: M. Ravinder Reddy .. Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. 2. The Commissioner of Police 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police 4. The Enquiry Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police 5. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Inasmuch as these four writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the order dated 08.06.2011 passed in O.A.Nos. 9304, 9352, 9353 and 9358 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal, Hyderabad and the issue involved in these matters is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. The petitioners, who are the applicants before the Tribunal, are working as Inspector of Police/Head Constable /Sub-Inspector of Police under the control and jurisdiction of the respondents herein. The petitioners filed separate applications in O.A. Nos. 9304, 9352, 9353 and 9358 of 2008 before the Tribunal being aggrieved by the Charge Memos dated 29.07.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. The case of the applicants before the Tribunal is that a notorious criminal (chain snatcher) who is involved in a series of about 36 criminal cases, lodged a complaint against the applicants and others alleging that while they were working at CCS, Balanagar, they beat the accused who were involved in snatching and other theft cases, and demanded money, and hence, a case was registered against them. Subsequently, the applicants were placed under suspension. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police, after investigating the crime, submitted a final report to the effect that the complaint allegations are false. The 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police accepted the final report, based on which, the orders of suspension were revoked and the applicants were issued posting orders. However, the 2nd respondent framed the following charge against them: “The applicants exhibited grave misconduct in beating the accused involved in snatching and other theft cases and demanding money for doing official favour by violating Rule 3(1 to 3) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1991”. The respondents are proceeding against the applicants on the departmental side on the same set of allegations which are proved to be false in the investigation conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The evidence of both documentary and oral, sought to be relied on both in the criminal case and on the departmental side is one and the same. It is also stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioners before this Court, protest petition filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate were withdrawn and quash proceedings filed before this Court was also closed. In view of these facts and circumstances, it will not be desirable on the part of the 2nd respondent to issue charge memos for conducting disciplinary proceedings for the second time, as such, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Respondents filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that after receipt of the charge memos, the applicants submitted their explanation denying the charge. The disciplinary authority, having not been satisfied with the explanation, appointed an enquiry officer, and the applicants participated in the enquiry. The petitioners also approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and obtained interim order of stay of the departmental proceedings, however, it is stated that though the writ petition might have been withdrawn by the respective parties and the quash proceedings might have been closed, but as far the delinquency is concerned, the respondents-department is entitled to proceed against the petitioners- applicants. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the charge in all the cases contains two limbs. Firstly, it is an exhibition of grave misconduct in beating the accused persons involved in snatching and other theft cases. The second one is demanding and accepting money for doing official favour by violation Rule-3(1 to 3) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The second limb of the charge has direct nexus to discharging of official duties by the applicants. The Tribunal further held that it is settled proposition of law that acquittal by the criminal Court is not a bar for disciplinary action. It is further held that the facts and circumstances which led to the withdrawal of the writ petition and protest petition and closure of quash proceedings have nothing to do with the delinquency exhibited by the applicants on the departmental side for which the department is entitled to proceed with the enquiry against them. Thus, the Tribunal, while disposing of the applications, directed the respondents- authorities to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for respondents and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, while drawing our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. K.S. Swaminathan[1] has vehemently contended that the charge framed by the department and the allegations leveled against the petitioners in criminal case are one and the same and once the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were closed, there is no point in conducting departmental proceedings, as such, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The learned Government Pleader for Services – I has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida[2] wherein it is held as follows: “The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.” Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the charge framed by the department and the criminal charge are one and the same, and particularly when the fact that the criminal proceedings are closed as false after through investigation by the police, there can be no question of conducting departmental enquiry. However, it is to be noticed that the charge framed by the department against the petitioners contains two limbs, one is exhibition of grave misconduct in beating the accused persons and the second one is that the charge has direct nexus to discharging of official duties by the petitioners. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings stand on a different footing inasmuch as strict rules of evidence are applicable in both the criminal and departmental proceedings and preponderance of probabilities are taken into consideration for proving the charges, therefore, these proceedings are totally different and distinct. The nature and scope of a criminal case are different from those of disciplinary proceedings. The decision sought to be relied on by the petitioners is bereft of any mention with regard to the departmental proceedings, and is therefore, not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perfectly justified particularly in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court as cited supra (2), to the effect that the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, these writ petitions are devoid of merits, and the same are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 20.07.2011 ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj [1] (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 498 [2] 2007(10) SCC 385