T. S. Ambedkar v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2017-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed with directions to the respondent-Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the petitioners’ claims for reinstatement in light of their acquittals, after affording them an opportunity of hearing, and to complete the exercise within four months from receipt of a copy of the judgment; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed with peremptory directions to consider reinstatement within four months; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.S. Ambedkar

Respondents

The Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, Thrissur Round North, Thrissur-680 001
The Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvanjikkulam Group, Cochin Devaswom Board, Kodungalloor, Thrissur-680 664
The Vigilance Officer (Enquiry Officer), Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur-680 001
The Special Devaswom Commissioner, Office of the Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur-680 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Ranjith Narayanan
• S. K. Saju

Counsels for Respondents

• N. Raghura(j)
• K. Krishna Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petitions arise from disciplinary termination of four Cochin Devaswom Board employees following theft allegations, even as criminal proceedings were initiated. The petitioners were acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy, and contend that such acquittals are honourable and justify reinstatement, relying on Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police (2015) 2 SCC 365, which discusses the meaning and consequences of an honourable acquittal when criminal and departmental proceedings coincide. The Board had terminated the petitioners on charges of misconduct, while the criminal cases were still pending. The respondents dispute that acquittals in the criminal arena necessarily translate into reinstatement, arguing that an acquittal may be on the merits or on technical grounds, and that departmental proceedings rely on additional evidence beyond the criminal trial. The court refrains from deciding the merits at this stage and directs the competent authority to consider reinstatement in light of the acquittals after affording the petitioners a hearing, within four months. The judgment emphasizes completing the exercise promptly because the petitions have lingered for years and treats the direction as peremptory. The court records no order as to costs and leaves the final determination to the Board’s discretionary review under Article 226.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2007 – sections 9(a) and 9(b) read with section 11

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Honourable acquittal doctrine
Benefit of doubt (principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that their honourable acquittals by the Magistrate establish entitlement to reinstatement, citing Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police to support the view that where criminal and departmental proceedings align with no material difference, reinstatement should follow. They request the Court to grant relief by directing reinstatement after hearing within a reasonable time.

Contentions of Respondents

The Board contends that an acquittal may be on the basis of doubt or technical grounds and that the disciplinary proceedings rely on additional evidence beyond the criminal trial; hence automatic reinstatement cannot be ordered. They emphasise maintaining procedural propriety and caution against preemptive relief without a full hearing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police	(2015) 2 SCC 365	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the concept of honourable acquittal; the court uses it to frame the argument but does not apply its ratio as a direct hold in this case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/9TH PHALGUNA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 15521 of 2011 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER (DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE UNDER DISMISSED): -------------------------------------------------** **T.S.AMBEDKAR,** **"MAASAPPIDI"(FORMER), ANNAMANADA DEVASWOM, S/O.SINKARAN, "THEVARPADATH VEEDU", AVITTAPPILLI DESOM, P.O. MATTATHUR, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001.** **2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANJIKKULAM GROUP, COCHIN DEVASWOM BAORD, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR-680 664.** **3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER (ENQUIRY OFFICER), COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680 001.** **4. THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-02-2017 ALONG WITH WPC.16565/2011 AND WPC.30549/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 15521 of 2011 (M)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** |**EXT.P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD.28.4.2009.**| |---|---| |**EXT.P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.10873/2008 DTD.31.10.2008.**| |**EXT.P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC.17309/2009 DTD.16.7.2009**| |**EXT.P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPLY DTD.22.7.2009.**| |**EXT.P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.6.8.2009.**| |**EXT.P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DTD.7.8.2009.**| |**EXT.P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.19.3.2010.**| |**EXT.P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DTD.7.4.2010.**| |**EXT.P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.4.2010.**| |**EXT.P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.2.9.2010.**| |**EXT.P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DTD.17.9.2010.**| |**EXT.P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.25.9.2010**| ||**ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER.**| |**EXT.P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DTD.14.12.2010.**| |**EXT.P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.14.12.2010.**| |**EXT.P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M-10873/08 DTD.19.2.2011**| ||**(UNDER CHALLENGE).**| |**EXT.P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.4.2013 IN CC.551/2009**| ||**PASSED BY THE LEARNED JFMC, CHALAKUDY.**| |**EXT.P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.2.12.2014 FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE**| ||**COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES.**| |**EXT.P18**|**NOTICE DTD.10.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA**| ||**STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED**| ||**TRIBES.**| **Msv/** **-2-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 15521 of 2011 (M) ----------------------------** |**EXT.P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.23.5.2015 ISSUED UNDER**| |---|---| ||**SECTION 9(a) AND (b) R/W SECTION 11 OF THE SC/ST ACTS,**| ||**2007.**| |**EXT.P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.15.6.2015.**| |**EXT.P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.14.12.2015.**| |**EXT.P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KERALA**| ||**STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASE AND SCHEDULED**| ||**TRIBES.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**|| |**-----------------------**|| ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.** ========================= W.P.(C) No.15521 & 16565 of 2011 & 30549 of 2013 ========================== Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** Four persons, who are employees of the Cochin Devaswom Board, were alleged to have committed theft and larceny in the course of their employment. Criminal proceedings were initiated against them, appropriate F.I.R registered and prosecution launched. At this time, the Cochin Devaswom Board initiated disciplinary action against these persons and found them guilty of misconduct and passed final orders terminating their services. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioners were able to obtain acquittal from the Magistrate's court, before which their prosecution was initiated and continued and, therefore, they now claim that they have a right to be considered for reinstatement based on such acquittal. 2. Three of those persons have filed these writ petitions. I am told that the fourth person had filed an earlier writ petition, namely, W.P.(C) No.9538 of 2014 and that the same has been disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 25.04.2014 W.P.(C) No.15521 of 2011 & con.cases. 2 directing the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider his claim of reinstatement within a time frame. 3. I have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.Sangeetha, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30549/13, Sri.K.S.Bharathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16565/2011 and Sri.Ranjith Narayanan, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15521/2011 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board in all these case. 4. The petitioners assert that they have been honourably exonerated by the Magistrate's court finding that they were not guilty of the charges levelled against them. This order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy is produced as Ext.P16 in W.P.(C) No.15521/2011. They assert that the acquittal is honourable and not merely on technicalities. 5. The learned senior counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police** [(2015) 2 SCC 365] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that “if the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being W.P.(C) No.15521 of 2011 & con.cases. 3 any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed.” The Honourable Supreme Court had also discussed in great detail the meaning of expression “honourable acquittal” in the said judgment which is available in paragraph 22 therein. Their Lordship have held 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.” The petitioners in these cases assert that they were acquitted by the court after consideration of the merits of the allegations against them. They maintain that therefore, they are entitled to be reinstated in service as per the ratio in **Bhaskar Reddy** (supra). 6. The learned standing counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board refutes these allegations by maintaining that even going by the judgment of the Magistrate's court, it cannot be said that the petitioners have obtained an honourable acquittal. According to him, the petitioners have only obtained the benefit of doubt which does not become an honorable acquittal. 7. Mr.Krishna Menon also adds that the petitioners may not W.P.(C) No.15521 of 2011 & con.cases. 4 be able to seek reinstatement merely on their acquittal because the disciplinary enquiry taken against them was not merely on the basis of criminal charges but also on the basis of other evidence which is proved in such enquiry. 8. I do not propose to consider these rival contentions at this stage because I think these are matters that the competent authority has to first consider before being subjected to judicial scrutiny by this Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent - Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board consider the claim of the petitioners that they be reinstated in service on account of their acquittal by the Magistrate's court in the criminal cases instituted against them, after affording an opportunity of being heard to hem. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since I am making this direction also for the reason, as I have recorded above, that another learned Single Judge has, in the case of fourth person involved, made similar directions in W.P.(C) No.9538/2014. W.P.(C) No.15521 of 2011 & con.cases. 5 10. Since these writ petitions have been pending before this Court for the past more than five to six years, I direct the respondent to treat these directions as being peremptory and he shall complete the exercise afore-directed within the time granted herein without seeking any further extension of time. The writ petition is ordered as above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. stu Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE**