Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate a delinquent from departmental charges, but the disciplinary authority must consider the findings of the criminal court and assign reasons for holding the delinquent guilty in the departmental proceeding.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the resolution of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated 21.10.1992. contained in Annexure 10 to the amendment petition whereby the petitioner has been punished with an order of dismissal from service of the Board and further he will not be paid any amount other than subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension nor the period of suspension will be treated as on duty for the purpose of salary.

2. It would be relevant to mention, initially this writ petition was filed for quashing the order of suspension including the main departmental proceeding.

3. It appears, at the relevant time, the petitioner while serving the Board as Junior Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board, Darbhanga, was arrested by the Police in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 84 dated 6.9.1981, registered under sections 379, 414 and 411 I.P.C. Therefore, the Board vide office order No. 285 dated 22.1.1992, placed the petitioner under suspension under the provisions of Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code.

4. Subsequently, on 5.6.1992, basically two charges were framed (i) on the ground of initiation of the criminal case and other (ii) that the alleged offence was a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. During the pendency of the inquiry, criminal trial for the alleged offence under sections 379, 414 and 411 I.P.C. was carried out and ultimately by judgment dated 25.3.1994, passed by the Judicia Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Photostat copy of the judgment is annexure 4 to the writ petition.

5. The Conducting Officer, however, after close of the inquiry by his report dated 23.3.1995, held the petitioner guilty of the charges for which practically the petitioner had got acquittal from the criminal court.

6. The petitioner thereafter, was given second show cause notice by the Board vide its resolution dated 27.6.1995. But at that stage also it was not noticed that the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges by the Criminal court. Ultimately, by the impugned order, which I have already noticed, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Inquiring officer as well as Disciplinary authority have wrongly come to a conclusion that petitioner was involved in a criminal case, therefore, entitled for a severe punishment. He contended admittedly, by judgment of the competent criminal court the petitioner was granted clean acquittal on 25.3.1994 itself. The court had also held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, it was not proper either for the Inquiring Officer or the respondent Board to take into account the alleged allegation on the basis of which the criminal case in question was started.

8. There cannot be any dispute that even with regard to the alleged offence for which a criminal case was started, the disciplinary authority can proceed against such a delinquent regarding his alleged misconduct in a departmental proceeding. This also cannot be denied that acquittal in a criminal case would not entitle a delinquent for automatic exoneration of the charges in a departmental poroceed-ing. But certainly, in a case where a delinquent is granted clean acquittal, the disciplinary authority will have to assign reasons while holding the delinquent guilty for the same charge in a departmental proceeding. In other words, suppose, the same set of witness and documents are examined by the criminal court as well as the Inquiring Officer making a different statement, naturally the disciplinary authority will have to be cautious and vigilant while holding a delinquent guilty on the basis of the evidence of such witnesses.

9. That apart, the Inquiring Officer as well as the disciplinary authority have completely failed to take notice of the findings of the criminal court granting acquittal to the petiti