IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.890 OF 2008 Between: The Chief Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad I Commissionerate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and two others. - - - Petitioners. AND Sri A.A. Laxma Reddy. - - - 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 issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to order dated 27-07-2007in O.A. No.180 of 2007 passed by the Hon”ble CAT, Hyderabad bench and quash the same and pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : A. Rajashekar Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General of India. Counsel for the Respondent : K.R.K.V. Prasadd. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated 27-07-2007 passed in O.A.180 of 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The petitioners herein are the authorities of Customs and Central Excise Department. The respondent herein filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the Memorandum of charge dated 28-10-2005 issued to him by the Joint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, second petitioner herein. The background of facts in brief are that the applicant- respondent herein joined services as Inspector in Customs and Central Excise in the year 1993. While he was working as Inspector, Central Excise at Siricilla in Karimnagar District, the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Hyderabad Branch, registered a Crime against him for the alleged offence of demand and acceptance of bribe from one B. Ramaswamy, punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(I) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On investigation, the C.B.I. filed charge sheet and the case was numbered as C.C. No.33 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases at Hyderabad. It is stated that after completion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, acquitted the applicant-respondent herein of the Criminal charges leveled against him by judgment dated 30-06-2004. It is stated that after acquittal in Criminal case, second petitioner issued the impugned charge memo dated 28-10-2005 proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-applicant on the same allegation that he demanded and accepted bribe from one B. Ramaswamy. The respondent-applicant challenged the said charge memo before the Tribunal on the ground that when the basis of charge in Criminal case in which he was acquitted and the basis of charge in the departmental proceedings sought to be initiated against him are one and the same, in as much as, he was honourably acquitted in Criminal case, the departmental proceedings cannot proceed against him. The Tribunal considering the matter by the impugned order quashed the departmental proceedings sought to be initiated against the applicant-respondent herein. Hence, this Writ Petition by the Department. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the departmental proceedings initiated by the department are different and distinct from the Criminal charges. The Criminal charges were tried for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(I) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but whereas the departmental proceedings are initiated for contravention of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules and also for committing gross misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant, i.e., he demanded and accepted bribe for doing illegal gratification from B. Ramaswamy to issue fresh registration certificate to the firm of Sri Boddula Ramaswamy. Learned Assistant Solicitor General also contended that the acquittal in a Criminal case does not bar the department from initiation of departmental enquiry as the two forums are different and distinct as generally departmental enquiry deals with infringement of public duty as distinguished from mere private rights punishable in Criminal proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in as much as the departmental proceedings are initiated on the very same set of charges, which were the basis of Criminal charge, ended in honourable acquittal and continuing the departmental proceedings would serve no useful purpose and the Tribunal rightly quashed the impugned memo and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Now the short point that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner who was tried for Criminal charges under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and ended in honourable acquittal, still be tried in departmental proceedings initiated by the department on the very same charges. In this case, no doubt, the petitioner was honourably acquitted of the charges and he was not acquitted on account of ‘benefit of doubt’, still the standard of proof required in departmental enquiry is not the same as required to prove in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others[1] has ruled that even acquittal of a delinquent in Criminal case that does not itself bar the department from initiating departmental enquiry on the same charges. The Division Bench of this Court to which I am a party (Ghulam Mohammed, J) has taken a view that acquittal in Criminal proceedings does not bar initiation of departmental enquiry. If we look at service jurisprudence, the purpose of departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent Officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant Rules applicable. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in quashing the impugned proceedings initiated against the respondent herein. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date:15-12-2010. DSH. [1] (2007) 10 SCC 385