THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W P No.2986 of 2000 P. Sai Prasad ….petitioner And Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WP No.2986 of 2000 Order: Heard. The petitioner is working as pharmacist in the respondent Steel Plant Hospital. On 27.10.1994 the petitioner was found in unauthorised possession of medicines worth of Rs.976/- belonging to the respondent Steel Plant Hospital when he was checked by the Central Industrial Security Force Personnel, at the respondent Hospital Main Gate. Based on this incident, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. An explanation was called for from the petitioner, and not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry committee was constituted by framing the charges. After conducting the enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority on 7.6.199 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority on examination of the matter, awarded punishment of reduction to lower stage in the time scale as per clause 28.1.5 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. Questioning the orders of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent-appellate authority. The appellate authority after examining the matter rejected the appeal by its order dated 13.8.1999. It is contended by the petitioner that subject matter of criminal proceedings initiated in C. C. No.287 of 1997 ended in acquittal and that judgment has become final; that since subject matter of the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings is one and the same and on identical facts, punishing the employee on findings of departmental enquiry is not proper and that the punishment imposed is harsh and needs to be modified. Since the petitioner was found carrying medicines belonging to the company without a valid permit slip from the Senior Medical Stores Officer of the Medical department, the disciplinary authority on examination of the matter took lenient view of the matter and awarded the punishment with reduction to lower stage in the time scale, which needs no interference by this court. As far as acquittal of the petitioner by a criminal court is concerned, the said order does not preclude the respondents from taking any action if it is otherwise permissible. The object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different and they operate in different fields and have different objectives (see CHAIRMAN-CUM-MD.,T.N.C.S. CORPN., LTD and others V. K. MEERABAI ( AIR2006 SC 3522). In the circumstances, I do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. The Writ Petition is meritless and is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated : 25-11-2010 Kk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W P No.2986 of 2000 25-11-2010