IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15673 of 2008 Between: L. Chandraiah, S/o. Mundaiah, Adilabad Postal Division, R/o. Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ Order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the orders passed in O.A. 84 of 2007 dated 6-6-2007 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same and further declare the order of Compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner vide proceeddings in memo No. ST/VP14/2004 dated 12-7-2004 is illegal, arbitrary as the same in passed without properly considering the acquittal of the Petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 97 dated 6-11-2003 and consequently direct the respondents to pay him all the retirement beneﬁts treating that as if he is in service till the date of super animation with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15673 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 06-06-2008 passed in O.A.No.84 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2. O.A. was ﬁled by the petitioner herein seeking to review the punishment in the light of the order of acquittal passed by the Supreme Court in his favour. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was that while he was working as Sub-Postmaster, he had committed fraud amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- and thereafter, he was placed under suspension and charge-sheet was issued. After regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The matter was carried in appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. 3. The case of the petitioner is that though he was convicted in a criminal case relating to the alleged fraud, he was ultimately acquitted by the Apex Court and thereafter, he submitted a representation to the respondent seeking review of punishment, but the respondent had not reinstated him into service in spite of acquittal. Instead, the respondent had modiﬁed the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement, which is a major penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled O.A. The Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the Apex Court had acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case relating to the same misconduct, but the acquittal by itself does not absolve him of all the charges levelled by the department. It is settled law that the acquittal in a criminal case will not preclude the department from conducting a regular enquiry against the delinquent oﬃcial. The Tribunal has recorded that the Supreme Court itself gave liberty to the department to proceed against the petitioner by way of initiating disciplinary proceedings. In fact, the department had concluded the enquiry before the order of acquittal was passed by the Apex Court. It is to be noticed that the disciplinary authority had modiﬁed the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’ by taking a lenient view, after the decision of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 22-7-2008 bsc