Acquittal in a criminal case can impact findings in departmental proceedings, and opportunity for representation before recording findings is a fundamental legal principle.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 30.10.1998 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 29.9.1999, contained in Annexures 6 and 7 respectively.

2. In short, the relevant facts of the as Shift Guard on 27.4.1978 in the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). It is claimed that there was no complaint against him in whole of his service career except that for the first time, a criminal case was instituted against him for recovery of illegal arms and ammunition and the properties snatched in a case of dacoity from a house where he and one Surendra Singh were present. The petitioner was acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, vide order/judgment dated 29.2.1996 (An-nexure 1) passed in Sessions Trial No. 57/87 corresponding to Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 105/85. However, on account of arrest of the petitioner in the said case, he was placed under suspension, vide Office Order No. 57 dated 14.3.1985. Later the order of suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceeding to be initiated against him.

3. After acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, vide Office Order No. 337 dated 30th September, 1997. Shri Ram-jeevan Mehta, Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Muzaffarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the proceeding witnesses were examined and cross-examined and on completion of said proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted . his enquiry report (Annexure 3) holding therein the charge not proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority differed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and, accordingly, issued second show cause notice, vide Office Order No. 2652 dated 23.6.1993, as to why he be not discharged from service assigning therein the reasons for difference with the finding of the enquiry of- ficer The ptitioner submitted his second show cause and the Board claimed that on consideration the same was found unsatisfactory and consequently, the disciplinary authority decided to discharge the petitioner from service and that he shall not be entitled to salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension was treated to be on duty. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Chairman of the Board who, by the impugned order (An-nexure 7), rejected his appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case as also the departmental proceeding were based on identical set of facts, namely, the raid conducted at the official quarter no. EF/13 and the presence of this petitioner with Surendra Singh in the said quarter at the time of raid and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom. On that basis the petitioner was also charged with that he fully knew.the culprits and that he had also contacts with them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were also examined in the criminal case besides several other witnesses, but the Court on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the petitioner was acquitted. In this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner lias submitted that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the judicial pronouncement, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings of even of the enquiry officer to stand. It is submitted that in the case of M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that since the facts and the evide