An acquittal in a criminal case does not render a disciplinary action invalid; independent findings in departmental inquiries are essential for justifying such actions.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners/State has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 743/2022 dated 11/01/2024, whereby, the order dated 23/12/2021 and 28/01/2021 passed by the original respondent nos. 2 and 3 were set aside.

3. By order dated 28/01/2021 in Departmental Inquiry, the punishment was imposed upon the original applicant, whereas by order dated 23/12/2021, the appellate authority has modified the punishment. The punishment which was finally imposed upon the original applicant was recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,71,500/- from his regular salary by deducting amount of Rs. 5,430/- in 50 months. Likewise, the permanent stoppage of one increment was also imposed upon him.

4. The aforesaid punishment was outcome of Disciplinary Inquiry initiated against the original applicant in the month of July, 2010. Following were the charges against the original applicant in the Departmental Inquiry:-

I) Failure to perform duty,

II) Non-payment of bills on time,

III) Unnecessarily keeping amount in locker, which is obtained under various extension schemes, and

IV) Misappropriation of Government Fund by pre-planning and therefore, liable to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,71,500/.

5 The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and observed that the Charge no. 1 so also the Charge No. 3 were partially proved. The Charge Nos. 2 and 4 were found to be ‘proved’. The Disciplinary Authority considering the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer concurred with its report and imposed the punishment of recovery of some of Rs. 2,71,500/- from the salary of original applicant within 50 months by equal monthly deduction of Rs. 5,430/-/-. Further, permanently, three increments were also stopped.

6. The Appellate Authority modified the said punishment dated 28/01/2021 by order dated 23/12/2021 and instead of stoppage of three increments reduced it to the stoppage of one increment permanently.

7. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that the original applicant was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 203 of Indian Penal Code on an allegation that the original applicant at the relevant time was working as an accountant and cashier in the office of Taluka Agricultural Officer, Armori. On 25/10/2004, he found that cash-box was open and cash of Rs. 2,75,000/- was missing. He therefore, informed his Officer. His Officer then lodge a report. During the course of investigation, it was found that the original applicant has committed the crime and consequently, the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 409, 203, 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC came to be registered against the original applicant and co-accused by named Manik. The completion of investigation resulted into filing of charge-sheet and registration of Regular Criminal Case No. 24/2010 and charges for the offences punishable under Section 409 and 203 of were framed.

8. The applicant was convicted by the Magistrate’s Court for the aforesaid two Sections. The order of Magistrate was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2014 by the original applicant and on 05/02/2020, he was acquitted.

9. In this background, the learned AGP for the petitioners/State submits that the learned Tribunal ought not to have set aside the punishment imposed upon the original applicant by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as the charges were different in two proceedings. She sub