IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17246 of 2011(E) ------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- S.ZAKKIR HUSSAIN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION CIRCLE, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, IRUTHALAMOOLA, THOLIKKODE.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 004. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 004. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NEDUMANGAD. 695 541. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AMENDED MEMO OF CHARGES NO. DIS. ACTION/CASHIER/06-07/114 DATED 12.12.2006 ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 14.1.07. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.4/2005 OF THE LEGAL ADVISOR & DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EBVS.(2)9/8/2004/448 DATED 28.5.2011. EXT.P4(a) : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. EBVS.(2)9/86/2004/351 DATED 27.4.2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 16.6.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 5/09 DATED 4.4.09 IN FIR NO. VC.6/05/TVM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17246 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Junior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board. On a charge of defalcation of money and manipulation of records and receipt books of the Board, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. On the same cause of action, departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, further proceedings in the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed until the criminal case is ultimately over. The petitioner seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to defer finalisation of disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Ext. P1 memo of charges till the disposal of C.C. No. 7/09 pending before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in the interest of justice.” 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Board also. 3. The primary object of staying disciplinary proceedings until the criminal case on the same set of facts is over is to protect the delinquent from prejudice in the criminal case insofar as in the disciplinary proceedings he would be bound to take a stand in respect of his defence, which may prejudicially affect his defence in the criminal case. That stage is over here since the petitioner has already taken a stand in the enquiry and the enquiry proceedings are over. In the enquiry, he did not W.P(C) No. 17246 of 2011 -: 2 :- take a stand that the same can be continued before the disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner's contention is that, if, ultimately an order of punishment is passed against the petitioner and the punishment order is produced before the criminal court, that may prejudice the mind of the Judge. I am not satisfied that judicial officers are that easily prejudiced by a departmental order. It is settled law that the standard of proof in domestic enquiries is only that of satisfaction of a reasonable man considering the evidence on record, whereas the stand of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the decision in the departmental proceedings cannot in any way affect the proceedings in the criminal case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/