Judgment These two petitions are arising out of one and the same proceedings and as such both the matters are taken up together for final hearing with the consent of both sides, namely, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 2. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-14 and A-12 respectively in this case, have come forward with these petitions seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichirappalli, for the offence under Sections 409 and 120(b) IPC. 3. The petitioners in both the matters, who have been arrayed as A-14 and A-12, were working as Assistants in the transport department and both of them have initially been appointed as Typists in the said department on 5.7.1990 and 5.1.1987 respectively and thereafter promoted as Assistants on 23.6.1996 and 28.3.1996 respectively. 4. There are totally 17 accused in this case and the charge against all the accused is to the effect that the petitioners and the other accused have been entrusted with the work of collection of registration fees in respect of new vehicles, giving new permits, license and driving license, collection of compounding amount, advance amount regarding the registration of numbers, financial registration amount, financial cancellation amount, surrender of licence amount, licence renewal fees amount and other amounts to be collected through computer and on the same day such amounts have to be brought into the account of the department. By misusing such power and responsibility, the accused 1 to 17 said to have committed misappropriation of Rs.10, 22, 672/- without bringing the above said collection amount into the account of the Government through the computer and used for their own purpose and thereby said to have committed the offence under Section 409 and 120(b) IPC. 5. It is seen that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7853 of 2008 (A-14) has said to have committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.2, 570/- and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7853 of 2008 (A-12) has said to have committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.4, 520. The period of misappropriation as per the department is from 1.1.2001 to 31.10.2002 in respect of both the petitioners. The period of misappropriation as per the department is from 1.1.2001 to 31.10.2002 in respect of both the petitioners. The petitioners have been suspended and ultimately the suspension orders were revoked by the Tamil Nadu Administration Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.Nos.504 of 2004 and 508 of 2004 by order dated 23.2.2004 and thereafter, both the petitioners were working as Assistants in Bagalur check-post under the control of the Regional Transport Officer, Krishnagiri and Pethikuppam check-post under the control of the Regional Transport Officer, Triuvallur respectively. It is pertinent to be noted that as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.19236 of 2006 and 10914 of 2006, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges and ultimately both the petitioners have been exonerated for the charges leveled against them in the departmental proceedings as per the Inquiry. Report dated 17.6.2007. The specific finding based on records and evidence of the Inquiry Officer is to the effect that the amount of Rs.2, 570/- and Rs.4, 520/- alleged to have been misappropriated by both the petitioners respectively have been remitted into the Government Account on the same day and therefore, there was no loss of revenue to the 5 Government. The Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner, who is the Head of the Department and Disciplinary authority, in his proceedings R.No.2906/VB1/2002 dated 20.6.2008 accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioners from the departmental charges. 6. As far as the criminal case is concerned, the same was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Deputy Transport Commissioner in Crime No.9 of 2003 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477(A) and 204 IPC ultimately culminating into filing the charge sheet in this case for the offences under Sections 409 and 120(b) IPC and the case is pending as on date on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichirappalli, in C.C.No.166 of 2008. 7. Mr. V. Balu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions contended that in view of the exoneration of the petitioners from the charges in the departmental proceedings, the petitioners cannot be proceeded in the criminal proceedings as both in the departmental and criminal proceedings, the charges are one and the same and identical and as such the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of a similarly placed accused, namely, one Rajeswari, this Court quashed the proceedings even at the First Information Report stage when the case was pending in Crime No.9 of 2003 in Crl.O.P.No.1589 of 2008 dated 22.2.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners in spite of the petitioners, who have been exonerated for the identical charges in the departmental proceedings would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court and as such the same is liable to the quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (1996) SCC (Cri.) 897: (1996) 1 MLJ (Crl) 741 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335: (1992) SCC (Crl) 426. 8. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record. 10. At the outset, this Court constrained to state that the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-14 and A-12 in this case, have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for the very same identical charges leveled against them in the criminal proceedings. It is pertinent to be noted that as far as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7853 of 2008, who has been arrayed as A-14, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner in his proceedings in proc. R. No. 2906/VBI/2002 dated 20.6.2008 accepting the findings of the inquiry officer that both the charges are not proved against her and thereby the charges against her are dropped. R. No. 2906/VBI/2002 dated 20.6.2008 accepting the findings of the inquiry officer that both the charges are not proved against her and thereby the charges against her are dropped. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is hereby incorporated as follows: “4.2 As per the Office Order No.8 of 2001 issued in R.No.124589/A1/1998, dated 8.3.2001 of the Regional Transport Officer Trichy it may be clearly seen that more than two or three persons were made to work on one computer at the same time as a result of which, a clear cut finding could not be arrived at as to who exactly was involved in and responsible for the said misappropriation of Government amount and to what extent?. Tmt. M. Sumathi, Assistant worked on one of the computers in the morning along with somebody else who worked on the same computer during the Night Time. The computers in the Regional Transport Office Trichy were not allotted to the individual staff with proper security lock with distinct password and user name. So the total responsibility of the operating the computers or deleting the wrong entries from the same could not be fixed upon Tmt. M. Sumathi, Assistant alone due to her innocence and lack of training in computers she is found to have committed errors. The inquiry officer after examining the evidence and other documentary evidences came to conclusion that lack of training and ignorance of the individual were also causes for this cancellation of wrong entries. However the delinquent official has not given any proof for all the cases with evidence that money collected was remitted into Government account, it was found that the total amount collected Rs.2, 570/- was not remitted to Government account. 4.3. During the course of oral inquiry the charged official produced evidences for the remittance of the amount of Rs.2, 570/- into the Government account on the same day. Hence, the inquiry officer stated that the loss of revenue to the Government is not involved in this case. 4.4. Hence the charge No.1 and charge No.2 levelled against her are held as Not Proved. 5. Hence, the inquiry officer stated that the loss of revenue to the Government is not involved in this case. 4.4. Hence the charge No.1 and charge No.2 levelled against her are held as Not Proved. 5. Conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority: the charges as framed, the findings of the inquiry officer, the charged official’s submissions during the course of personal hearing all have been examined in depth and upon holistic assessment and consideration of the matter it may have to be noted that the findings of the inquiry officer that both the charges are not proved against her has been accepted and charges against her are dropped.” 11. In respect of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7854 of 2008, who has been arrayed as A-12, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner in his proceedings in Proc.R.No.2906/VBI/2002 dated 20.6.2008 accepting the findings of the inquiring officer that both the charges are not proved against her and thereby the charges against here are dropped. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is hereby incorporated as follows: “4.2 As per the Officer Order No.8 of 2001 issued in R.No.124589/AI/1998, dated:8.3.2001 of the Regional Transport Officer Trichy it may be clearly seen that more than two or three persons were made to work on one computer at the same time as a result of which, a clear cut finding could not be arrived at as to who exactly was involved in and responsible for the said misappropriation of Government amount and to what extent?. Tmt. K. Nanmullai, Assistant worked on one of the computers in the morning along with somebody else who worked on the same computer during the Night Time. The computers in the Regional Transport Office Trichy were not allotted to the individual staff with proper security lock with distinct password and user name. So the total responsibility of the operating the computers or deleting the wrong entries from the same could not be fixed upon Tmt. K. Nanmullai, Assistant alone due to her innocence and lack of training in computers she is found to have committed errors. The inquiry officer after examining the evidence and other documentary evidence came to conclusion that lack of training and ignorance of the individual were also causes for this cancellation of wrong entries. K. Nanmullai, Assistant alone due to her innocence and lack of training in computers she is found to have committed errors. The inquiry officer after examining the evidence and other documentary evidence came to conclusion that lack of training and ignorance of the individual were also causes for this cancellation of wrong entries. However the delinquent official has not given any proof for all the cases with evidence that money collected was remitted into Government account, it was found that the total amount collected Rs.4, 520/- was not remitted to Government account. 4.5 During the course of oral inquiry the charged official produced evidences for the remittance of the amount of Rs.4, 520/- into the Government account on the same day. Hence the inquiry officer stated that the loss of revenue to the Government is not involved in this case. 4.6. Hence the charge No.1 and charge No.2 levelled against her are held as Not Proved. 5. Conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority: The charges as framed, the findings of the inquiry officer, the charged official’s submissions during the course of personal hearings all have been examined in depth and upon holistic assessment and consideration of the matter it may have to be noted that the findings of the inquiry officer that both the charges are not proved against her has been accepted and charges against her are dropped.” 12. It is pertinent to be noted, as already stated, that both the petitioners in the departmental as well as in the criminal proceedings have been alleged with one and the same identical charges. The categorical finding of the disciplinary authority is to the effect that the charges are not proved and added to that it is specifically held by the disciplinary authority in his order dated 20.6.2008 that both the petitioners during the oral enquiry produced evidence for the remittance of the amount of Rs.2, 470/- and Rs.4, 520/- respectively into the Government account on the same day and as such there is absolutely no loss of revenue to the Government involved in this case. 13. Therefore, there is much force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. 13. Therefore, there is much force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. This Court also in respect of a similarly placed accused in this case, namely, one Smt. Rajeswari, quashed the case at the First Information Report stage itself in Crl.O.P.No.1589 of 2008 by order dated 22.2.2008. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in that decision has held as follows: “17. …. The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings in one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.” 15. In the very same decision the Hon’ble Apex Court referred the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and held as follows: “20. At the risk of repetition, we may state that the charge had not been proved and on that basis the appellant was cleared of departmental enquiry. In this connection, we may also usefully cite a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426. This Court after considering almost all earlier decisions has given guidelines relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an FIR or a complaint. This Court after considering almost all earlier decisions has given guidelines relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an FIR or a complaint. This Court observed as follows: (SCC pp.378-79, paras 102-3) “In the back drop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegation made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegation made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegation made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 21. The present case can be brought under more than one head given above without any difficulty.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings. The above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the charges are one and the same and identical in both the departmental proceedings and in criminal proceedings and as already stated in the departmental proceedings both the petitioners have been exonerated from the charges leveled against them as not proved and as such allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court and as such this Court is constrained to quash the proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the proceedings in so far as the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-14 and A12, are concerned pending in C.C.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II. Trichirappalli, is hereby quashed. 17. Accordingly, the proceedings in so far as the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-14 and A12, are concerned pending in C.C.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II. Trichirappalli, is hereby quashed. 18. These petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.