Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve the individual from liability in a disciplinary proceeding, as the standards of proof and evidence appreciation differ between criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

1. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17 August 2021 passed by respondent no. 2 / Additional Secretary, Public Health Department, Mahaharashtra as well as the order dated 04 May 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 580 of 2021.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in Public Health Department of Maharashtra on 07 June 1982. He was promoted to the post of Medical Superintendent in the month of July-2008 and he was discharging his duties as such at Beed.

3. The petitioner was arrested pursuant to registration of Crime No. 66 of 2012 with the Police Station, Beed (City) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 312, 313, 315, 316, 318, 201, 304 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [in short ‘IPC’] as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [for the sake of brevity “PCPNDT Act’] and the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 r/w Section 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as ‘MTP Act’]. On 27 August 2012, the petitioner was put under suspension and on 31 August 2012, he stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. On 01 October 2015, the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry for misconduct in terms of Rule 3 and 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 r/w Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The gist of the charges levelled against him can be summarized as under: -

[a] That, the petitioner while discharging his duties as Medical Superintendent (Class-I officer) at Rural Health Centre, Chinchwan, offered his professional services at private hospital as an Anesthetist and engaged himself in private practice, hence committed misconduct in terms of Rule 3 and 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

[b] That, the petitioner while discharging his duties as Medical Superintendent (Class-I officer) at Rural Health Centre, Chinchwan, aided illegal termination of pregnancy at private hospital, which displays moral turpitude for a Government Servant and amounts to misconduct in terms of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

[c] That, the petitioner while discharging his duties as Medical Superintendent at Rural Health Centre, Chinchwan, was found to be associated in illegal termination of pregnancy along with other accused in Crime No. 66 of 2012 for offences under PCPNDT Act, MTP Act and IPC. The act of the petitioner is unbecoming of the Government Servant and misconduct in terms of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

[d] That, the petitioner while discharging his duties as Medical Superintendent at Rural Health Centre, Chinchwan, involved himself in the act of female foeticide and illegal termination of pregnancy for which he has been arrested on 28th June, 2012 and remanded to magisterial custody on 30th June 2012 for 15 days. The media reports regarding such misconduct had been widely published tarnishing image of the Government, which is the misconduct in terms of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

4. The petitioner was served with the memorandum of charges and subjected to departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report of enquiry dated 30 January 2018 with affirmative findings of guilt against petitioner for all the charges. After receipt of the enquiry report, disciplinary authority given an opportunity to petitioner to make his representation regarding findings recorded in the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority after considering report of Inquiry Officer and the representation made by the petit