The acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically impact a disciplinary proceeding, and the acceptance of an order by the Appellate Authority concludes the disciplinary proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in OA No. 500/AN/2017 the petitioner has filed the instant writ application.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is a constable in Indian Reserve Battalion, Andaman & Nicobar Islands. On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard. All the persons were arrested and a criminal case was registered against them under sections 50/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 vide Misc. Case No. 107 of 2012. All were sent to judicial custody.

3. The respondent authorities initiated a common proceeding against all the members and issued charge sheet against them. They were charged with the act of illegal trading of Wild Water Monitor Lizard amounting to grave misconduct and gross indiscipline which is in contravention of the mandatory provision under Rule 3 (1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against all the aforesaid persons and they were tried jointly. The petitioner participated in the said proceeding and preferred to be heard in person.

5. After assessment of evidences the Presenting Officer filed report on 18th March, 2015 that the charges leveled against the charged officers including the petitioner were substantiated. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner with a direction to submit reply in his defense within seven days.

6. At this juncture the petitioner and the three other members approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench by filing separate original applications which were heard analogously and by a common order dated 05th August, 2015 the learned Tribunal dismissed all the applications by granting four weeks' time for giving reply to the inquiry report.

7. Pursuant to the leave granted by the learned Tribunal the petitioner filed his defense before the Commandant, Indian Reserve Battalion. The Commandant being the Disciplinary Authority after appreciation of the evidence came to the finding that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Members of a disciplined force are to discharge their duties honestly and sincerely. The charged members indulged in criminal activity. Showing lenience would set a bad precedent and encourage other members of the battalion in committing such indisciplined acts. Such act of misdemeanor produced undesirable and negative impact on the organization.

8. The Commandant vide an order dated 30th September, 2015 taking into account the otherwise unblemished record of the charged members imposed punishment under Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He imposed the penalty of forfeiture of five years of future increment with cumulative effect for their misconduct and indisciplined act.

9. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of punishment. The Director General of Police being the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21st January, 2016 rejected the said appeal holding that there was no merit in the case.

10. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Additional Court, Port Blair vide judgment dated 22nd September, 2016 acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case. The learned Court observed that the ingredients of hunting or trade or business of wild animals are not established in this case beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Armed with the aforesaid order of acquittal the petitioner made a representation before the Director General of Police on 27th September, 2016 praying for exonerating him from the punishment imposed upon him.

12. The Commandant vide a memorandum dated 14th October, 2016 informed the petitioner that the outcome of the criminal case has no bearing upon the disciplinary proceeding