CHENNAI: The scope of disciplinary proceedings in a department and the scope of criminal proceedings in a court of criminal law are "quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other," the Supreme Court has held.

Upholding the dismissal of a Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation (TNCSC) Limited employee K. Meerabai for misappropriation of funds and fudging stocks, a Bench comprising Justice H.K. Sema and Justice AR. Lakshmanan said she had caused "enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, which is an institution primarily concerned with the distribution of essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of Tamil Nadu.

Her dismissal from service has been upheld by the appellate authority vide its very detailed, well-considered and well-reasoned verdict."

Appointed Bill Clerk in 1974, Ms. Meerabai was suspended along with some other staff members for misappropriation of TNCSC funds to the tune of Rs. 9.87 lakh, besides "fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring to account the stocks received, showing bogus issues in records, falsification and manipulation of accounts."

Found guilty

While a full-fledged departmental inquiry by an appellate authority found her guilty of the charges, a single judge of the High Court allowed her writ petition and directed her immediate reinstatement. The TNCSC's appeal against the order was dismissed by a Division Bench. The orders were passed on the ground that criminal proceedings against Ms. Meerabai had ended in her acquittal. The Corporation filed the present special leave petition.

Mr. Justice Lakshmanan, writing the judgment for the Bench, said the High Court had "misdirected" itself and lost sight of the fact that the criminal case against the employee was for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, whereas the departmental inquiry was for her failure to maintain records and misappropriation of stocks.

Concurring with the TNCSC's plea that it would be "virtually impossible" for it to reinstate her, Mr. Justice Lakshmanan said: "This court has held in a catena of decisions that interference is not permissible unless the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities is clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust."

Rejects leniency plea

The Bench also rejected the plea for taking a "lenient view" of the matter and said the appellate authority of the TNCSC had passed an order based on "dispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of the entirety of facts and evidence on record."

Confirming the orders of dismissal, the Bench said: "The charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, the matter should be dealt with firmly and not leniently."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail