Criminal proceedings and a disciplinary enquiry are two different aspects of a case, and the acquittal of an accused in a criminal proceeding does not bar a disciplinary enquiry against him.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No. 29139(W) of 2014 dated 13th November, 2014. The appellant is a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and at the relevant time was posted at Gangarampur/Buniadpur in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur. The allegation against the appellant is that he opened a Facebook account in the name of his colleague, a Judicial Magistrate at Gangarampur. He, without her consent, posted her photographs with an intention to harass and defame her. A complaint was received from Judicial Magistrate by the High Court on its administrative side. It appears that the Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur, lodged a complaint with the Banshihari Police Station, Dakshin Dinajpur being FIR No.194 of 2012 dated 20th September, 2012. The case was investigated by the Cyber Crime Cell, CID, West Bengal. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the competent Court on 15th January, 2014. The charge framed was under Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The Administrative Committee of this Court resolved on 26th August, 2014 that a disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the appellant for harassing/annoying a lady Judicial Officer. The decision of the Administrative Committee was ratified by the Full Court on 5th September, 2014.

3. On 18th September, 2014 the appellant was served with a copy of the order of suspension, the memorandum of charge with imputations and a letter indicating that the Registrar (Listing) of the Calcutta High Court had been appointed as Enquiry Officer with the Registrar (Vigilance and Protocol), High Court at Calcutta as the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charge levelled against the appellant.

4. The appellant was informed that he was required to submit his written statement under Rule 11(4) of the West Bengal Judicial Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"] within 30 days from the receipt of the memorandum of charge. He was also expected to indicate whether he desired to be heard in person.

5. The appellant submitted his reply/written statement on 17th October, 2014. In his written statement he answered the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet.

6. The criminal case started against the appellant resulted in his acquittal on the basis of a statement made by the complainant. By a judgment dated 23rd July, 2014, the appellant was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act.

7. The decision to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant was taken only after he had been acquitted by the criminal Court. Without waiting for the disciplinary authority to take any action in respect of the reply submitted by him, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP No. 29139(W) of 2014 on 29th October, 2014. In his writ petition, the appellant prayed for the withdrawal or revocation of the orders dated 18th September, 2014 issued to him by the High Court through the Registrar (Judicial Service) which were the order of suspension, memorandum of charge together with imputation and the letter appointing an enquiry officer. He also prayed for a stay of the aforesaid orders.

8. By the decision of 13th November, 2014 which is impugned in the present appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as he was of the opinion that there was no need to quash the disciplinary proceedings at that stage. The appellant was granted liberty to renew his prayer for revocation of the order of suspension before the appropriate authority. It appears from the order of the learned Judge that the main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were (i) that he was continued on suspension despite the fact that he had been acquitted by the criminal court, and (ii) that the departmental proceedings would be an empty formality as he had already been acquitted by the