WA/3515/2023 of THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS Vs S.GANAPRAKASAM on 7 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order in W.P.No.30996 of 2015 dated 21.02.2023.

2. The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was employed as Grade-II Warden in the Sub Jail, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District. He was absented from service from 04.11.2010 to 22.11.2010 due to illness. After recovery, he resumed duty and produced a medical certificate to the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. However, the 2nd respondent treated the petitioner as ‘deserter’ and refused to accept the medical certificate. The 2nd respondent further found that on 04.12.2010 at about 5.00 P.M. an occurrence took place relating to theft of a two wheeler. A case was registered in Cr.No.2392 of 2010 for offence under Section 379 IPC as against the petitioner and he was remanded to Prison on 06.12.2010. Thereafter, he was released on 21.12.2010. On the basis of the said incident and on the basis of absence from duty, the 2nd respondent framed charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules and issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner calling for his explanation. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.03.2011 and after receiving the explanation, enquiry was initiated. In the meantime, charge sheet was filed in the criminal case and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.226 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District and after trial, the case ended in acquittal on the ground that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

4. On completion of enquiry in the departmental proceedings, the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 13.03.2015 observed that the petitioner was treated as deserter as he did not report for duty continuously without leave or permission and that he was involved in criminal charge under Section 379 IPC and held that charges are proved under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules and imposed punishment of Dismissal from Service.

5. As against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority viz., the 1st respondent in the writ petition and the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2015.Challenging the said order of dismissal, the writ petitioner contended that no sufficient opportunity was given to explain his case and especially, since the criminal case ended in acquittal and the judgment clearly established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, the disciplinary authority ought to have discharged the writ petitioner from charges and also contended that punishment awarded is disproportionate.

6. The respondents in the writ petition, who are the appellants in the present writ appeal, filed counter and submitted that the enquiry officer found that the acquittal is not a clean honourable acquittal but on the ground of benefit of doubt due to witnesses tuned hostile. The respondents further contended that materials are available to prove the charges as against the writ petitioner and that absence without permission is a serious misconduct and the same would fall under the definition of Desertion.

7. The Writ Court, in para 12 of the order, set aside the order of punishment solely on the ground of acquittal in criminal case. For better appreciation, para 12 of the order is extracted hereunder:

12. It is settled proposition of law that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. Therefore, the dismissal order based on the same set of facts, on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Under the said circumstances, the punishment imposed on the petitioner pursuant to the departmental enquiry has to be held as bad’’.

8. We heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the records. Though notice has been served on the respondent, none appeared on his behalf either in person or through counsel.

9. The finding of the Writ Court is based purely on the ground that once the criminal case ended in acquittal after full consideration of prosecution evidence and especially when the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges, it can be reasonably presumed that the accused was honourably acquitted. We are afraid of accepting the said view. The writ petitioner was in an uniformed service. Grave charges were levelled against him and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The charges levelled against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder: ‘’Charge No.1 : He dereliction his legitimate duty and stayed away from duty from 04.11.2010 to 24.11.2010 Charge No.2: He violated the Prison Rules, Conduct Rules and indulged in stealing a Motor Cycle bearing No. TN 25 4712 on 04.12.2010 from which a case has been registered in Polur Police Station in Crime No.2392 of 2010 U/S 379 IPC’’.

10. There is no proper explanation on the part of the writ petitioner for his absence. The writ petitioner relied upon the order of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court and contended that the second charge should not be put against him. However, the Criminal Court's finding is not one of honourable acquittal based on appreciation of evidence on merits. On the other hand, the Criminal Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case failed because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, it is only benefit of doubt, not clean acquittal.

11. Law is well settled that acquittal in criminal case due to witnesses turning hostile cannot be treated as honourable acquittal so as to automatically set aside departmental punishment. Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and independent. Standard of proof is different.

12. Being a person in uniformed service, the expectation of discipline and integrity is very high and the petitioner failed in that expectation. The order of dismissal was issued only after full-fledged enquiry under Rule 17(b) and after giving opportunity. However, the Writ Court solely relied upon the acquittal order of the Criminal Court and set aside the order of dismissal and has not considered the charge of absence from duty amounting to desertion. In fact, the petitioner has not properly explained his absence without prior permission.

13. In view of the same, interference in the order passed by the writ Court is necessary. Hence, the order of the Writ Court is not sustainable.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.02.2023 made in W.P.No.30996 of 2015 is set aside. The order of dismissal from service dated 13.03.2015 confirmed by Appellate Authority dated 01.09.2015 is restored. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli WA No. 3515 of 2023 07-09-2026