IMPORTANT POINT
The concept of 'honourable acquittal' and its effect on disciplinary enquiry, permissibility of further enquiry post honourable acquittal, and the influence of external agencies on disciplinary proceedings.

Petitioner-CBDT along with Secretary and Under Secretary of the Ministry of Finance are before the Writ Court for laying a challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 17.04.2018, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A whereby Respondent-employee’s O.A.No.170/ 00733/2017 having been favoured, the ‘charge sheet’ in the disciplinary enquiry has been quashed with a direction to hold ‘Review DPC’ within two months to consider her case for promotion.

II. Learned ASG appearing for the petitioners argued for faltering the impugned order that: the Criminal Court’s order acquitting the respondent-employee does not have the trappings of honourable acquittal and therefore the disciplinary proceedings could not have been quashed; the Enquiry Report having not been found satisfactory, further enquiry was directed on 05.12.2017 and accordingly the report finding the employee guilty has been submitted; there is no bar for soliciting the views of Chief Vigilance Commissioner on matters of the kind; that being the position, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the charge sheet. So arguing, he sought for the quashment of impugned order.

III. After service of notice, respondent-employee has entered appearance through her counsel on record. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent vehemently resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He contended that the order of the Criminal Court convicting the respondent has been reversed by a learned Single Judge of this court with a specific finding as to there being no ‘demand & acceptance’; this order, on challenge in a Civil Appeal, the Apex Court declined interference; the prosecution material & pertinent witnesses were the same in the disciplinary enquiry; the Enquiry Report dated 14.03.2014 had found the employee ‘not guilty’; strangely, further enquiry was directed and without holding any further enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a contradictory report now holding the employee guilty; in any circumstance, what the Tribunal has done perfectly accords with established cannons of service jurisprudence. So contending, he prayed for the dismissal of writ petition.

IV. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

A. AS TO HONOURABLE ACQUITTAL & ITS EFFECT ON DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY:

(1) The respondent-employee was convicted & sentenced by the Trial Court in Special (Corruption) Case No.205/2009 for the offences punishable u/ss. 7, 13(1)(d) & Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide order dated 05.07.2011. Her Criminal Appeal No.711/2011 against the same came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 14.08.2013. The CBI took the matter to the Apex Court in SLP No.18240/2014; on leave being granted, the same came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.274/2014 and after hearing it came to be dismissed on 31.01.2024. The said order though short is as clear as gangetic waters and it reads as under:

“1. We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning given by the High Court for acquittal of the respondent.

2. The appeal is dismissed accordingly”.

(2) The vehement submission of learned ASG that the acquittal order made by the learned Single Judge does not make out a case of ‘honourable acquittal’, is bit difficult to countenance, and reasons for this are not far to seek: the respondent-employee being the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order on 26.12.2008 (Ex.P-1) and on the same day, it was handed to complainant’s Auditor (PW-4). This apart, a copy of the said order was also dispatched to the complainant-assessee on the same day as is reflected in the Despatch Register, which mentions about assessment orders of others too. Very significantly, this document that was marked as Ex.P-22 is not in dispute. The learned Single Judge in the acquitta