Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 17th May, 2018 passed in WP No. 14603 (W) of 2016 (Shri Pranab Kanti Dey vs. WBSEDCL and Others) wherein the Honb’le Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

2. The appellant was an employee of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and was posted as Senior Assistant (A) at Burdwan Electricity Supply Sector-1 from 14th February, 2000 to 5th May, 2001. The appellant was assigned with the duty of meter reading of various places under HO 4, HO 5, GO 4 Zone.

3. On 3rd March, 2001, the Inspector In-charge of Burdwan Police Station on the complaint of one Nabani Dey on the allegation of demand of bribe by the appellant from one consumer, namely Sujit Kumar Mitra to reduce the amount of his energy bill had registered a case against the appellant being G.R.P.S Case No. 19 of 2001 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe and was arrested.

4. After initiation of criminal proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority had issued a Memo dated 23rd July, 2001 to the appellant informing the appellant that the Disciplinary Authority proposed to hold an enquiry under Regulation 61 and 63 of the Employees Service Regulation against the appellant and accordingly Article of charges along with list of documents and list of witnesses were served to the appellant.

5. On receipt of the Memorandum along with Article of charges, the petitioner had submitted his representation for supply of documents including the two diaries of the officers conducted inquiry and allow the appellant to go through the said documents. The appellant had also requested for stay of the departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case initiated against the petitioner.

6. The request made by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents and the Disciplinary Authority had appointed Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

7. As the authorities refused to stay the proceeding, the appellant had preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Bench being WP No. 14711 (w) of 2003 and on 15th January, 2004, the Hon’ble Single Judge pleased to pass an order to the effect that the appellant will be at liberty to appear at the enquiry/ disciplinary proceeding but the appearance of the appellant at the said proceeding shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant. The Hon’ble Single Judge also directed the authorities not to make any disciplinary order without the leave of the Court and if witness or witnesses are examined or if any evidence is taken in the matter that too will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant.

8. As there was no stay granted by the Hon’ble Single Judge, accordingly, the respondents have proceeded with the departmental proceeding. Nothing were served upon the appellant by the Enquiry Officer and the appellant had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and also cross examined the witnesses except some witnesses. The Enquiry Officer on completion of enquiry had submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority.

9. The Disciplinary Authority had forwarded the enquiry report to the appellant for his reply and on 24th March, 2006, the appellant had submitted his representation against the enquiry report.

10. In the meantime, the appellant was acquitted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Burdwan from the criminal case on 23rd December, 2011.

11. The writ petition filed by the appellant being WP No. 14711 of 2003 was taken up for hearing on 15th January, 2014 and the Hon’ble Single Judge had disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner within fortnight from da