Acquittal in a criminal case does not operate as a bar to the disciplinary authority initiating a departmental proceeding based on the self-same incident giving rise to the former.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. We are seized of two writ petitions involving common parties. The issue arising therein for decision is also common, as would appear from the discussions infra. We, therefore, propose to decide these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

2. The central issue requiring a decision on these writ petitions is, whether refusal to grant interim relief to the petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter 'the tribunal') is justified or not. This issue emerges from an issue of law which, however, is not too uncommon. Time and again, such issue having arisen before the Supreme Court, law has been laid down in clear terms and it is our duty to apply such law here.

3. At the time the writ petitions were received by this Court in 2010, the coordinate Bench was urged to consider whether the tribunal was right in its approach in not staying the departmental proceedings (two in number) initiated against the petitioner, thereby allowing the same to continue simultaneously with the two criminal proceedings which were continuing in the criminal court. During the several years that have passed since admission of the writ petitions, much water has flown down the Ganges. The criminal court has pronounced the petitioner 'not guilty' in one of the two criminal cases where she stood trial for over a decade. The other case is yet to be finalized. The factual matrix, because of such development, has been altered insofar as one of the writ petitions is concerned. However, in the changed circumstances, what has been argued before us on behalf of the petitioner is, what would be the effect of an acquittal of an accused recorded by a competent criminal court on a departmental proceeding, where such accused is the charged employee, and when the incidents, which happen to be the source of the departmental charge-sheet and the criminal trial, is the same, the witnesses who would support the version of the management in the departmental proceedings and in favour of the prosecution of the trial have deposed in the trial are the same, and the documentary evidence to be relied on in the departmental proceedings is the same evidence that was led before the criminal court?

4. The facts as discerned from W.P.C.T. 7 of 2010 are these.

4.1. The petitioner is an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereafter BSNL). At the material time, she was working as an Accounts Officer as well as Disbursing Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer (E), TED-II, BSNL, Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata.

4.2. In February 2003, in course of an enquiry, it was found that no computer/furniture had actually being purchased by the office of the SE (E), TEC-I, BSNL, Kolkata, although a number of bills/invoices had been cleared for payment and cheques upon being signed by the petitioner had been encashed, resulting in financial loss to the BSNL. It was further found that fake bills and invoices were raised. It also came to light that one Chandan Biswas (hereafter Chandan), the then Cashier, TEC-I, BSNL, Kolkata, had brought those bills for payment and he pursued the matter resulting in its clearance.

4.3. An F.I.R dated May 9, 2003 was registered, whereupon the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) commenced investigation. Upon completion of investigation, police report (charge-sheet bearing no. 28/04, dated September 30, 2004) under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the CrPC) was filed before the competent court. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that investigation had revealed commission of offences by several employees of the BSNL including Chandan and the petitioner, in collusion with several private parties. It appears from the charge-sheet that investigation revealed diverse acts of omission/commission at the instance of Chandan, Shri Ajay Rampuriya and Shri Sanjay Rampuriya of M/s. Mohini Computers, Shri Harihar Prasad Vidyarthi, another employee of BSNL as well as the petitioner.