Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to exoneration in a departmental inquiry, and the disciplinary authority has discretion in treating the suspension period.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. This petition challenges order dated 30th June, 2018 passed by respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 91 of 2018, thereby imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect and treating the suspension period as suspension period.

3. The petitioner was working on the post of Head Master of C. P. S. Kanya School, Shirur, Taluka Shirur (Ka), District Beed, run by Zilla Parishad, Beed. On 21st November, 2012, an offence punishable under sections 7, 13 (i) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the said Act") was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and was remanded to police custody. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail on 23rd November, 2012. Respondent No.3, vide order dated 5th December, 2012, put the petitioner under suspension with effect from 21st November, 2012. A notice of inquiry was issued to the petitioner on 7th February, 2014 along with charges. According to the petitioner, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry were identical to the charges in the criminal case, so also papers of investigation were relied upon by the disciplinary authority in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

4. Departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner between 2014 and 2018. The inquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are partly proved. The disciplinary authority, by the impugned order, imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect on next annual increments and directed to treat the suspension period of the petitioner between 21st November, 2012 and 8th November, 2016 as suspension period. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the punishment order, by preferring appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The impugned punishment order is assailed in the present writ petition.

5. Heard Mr. Amol Kakade, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. S. Dambe, learned advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Perused the record.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the petitioner is acquitted in criminal case i.e. Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2013, vide judgment dated 24th August, 2017 and in that view of the matter, the petitioner should have been exonerated in the departmental inquiry, since charges levelled in the criminal case are similar to the charges levelled in the departmental proceedings. He submitted that the disciplinary authority has erred in imposing the punishment on the petitioner.

7. He further submitted that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, the disciplinary authority ought to have exonerated him from all the charges. He further submitted that the petitioner was suspended for a prolonged period and the decision in the departmental inquiry was given belatedly. The delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner and by relying on some decisions of the Apex Court, he submitted that continuation of the suspension beyond ninety days is not permissible and in view of the honourable acquittal of the petitioner, suspension period of the petitioner should have been regularized and ought to have been treated as duty period. He, therefore, submitted that the writ petition may be allowed, by setting aside the impugned order.

8. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of the Supreme Court -

I. "O. P. Gupta V/s Union of India and Others", MANU/SC/0670/1987

II. "Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s Bharat Gold Mines Ltd." AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 AIR SCW 1098

III. "Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Others V/s Sarvesh Berry" MANU/SC/1048/2004

IV. "Ajay Kumar Choudhary V/s Uni