IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of acquittal in a criminal case, when read with the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities, can result in a clean slate for the accused in the disciplinary proceedings, leading to reinstatement and consequential service benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. An order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.08.2023 passed in an Original Application filed by the petitioner is under challenge in this present writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the memorandum of charge, the order of dismissal, the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of dismissal and the Authority’s rejection of review from the said order. The petitioner’s prayer for re-instatement to the post in which the petitioner was appointed was also rejected.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the India Reserve Battalion (IRBn), Andaman and Nicobar Islands in 2002. The petitioner was arrested in 2012 in connection with a case in the Aberdeen Police Station under sections 451, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 18.06.2012 pursuant to which the petitioner was placed under suspension. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the Articles of charge vide memorandum dated 24.01.2013. The petitioner denied the charges framed against him. The Inquiry Officer conducted as enquiry and submitted his findings on 10.10.2013 which was served upon the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to reply to the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was submitted on 20.10. 2013.

3. The Disciplinary Authority (Commandant), IRBn imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by an order dated 28.02.2014. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 23.05.2014. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by an order dated 7.06.2014. The petitioner, in the meantime, was acquitted in a criminal proceeding by an order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II on 14.11.2017. Pursuant to the acquittal, the petitioner sought for review of the order passed by the Appellate Authority which however was dismissed on 07.03.2018. The petitioner filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which culminated in the impugned order dated 28.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal pursuant to the order of acquittal from the criminal charges. Counsel places a letter dated 28.10.2013 from the petitioner to the IRBn which records that the complainants have withdrawn their respective cases from the Court after accepting the petitioner’s apology. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been on suspension and sought for an opportunity by way of the said letter to correct his course of conduct. Counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority did not take the contents of this letter into account while passing the order of dismissal on 28.02.2014.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was charged with two Articles framed in the departmental enquiry and that the order of the acquittal related only to one of the charges. Counsel also submits that the order of acquittal from the criminal charges was based on at least 3 of the witnesses not being examined by the prosecution. Counsel further submits that the standard of proof in the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are wholly different and cannot be equated to give relief to the petitioner on the basis of the order of acquittal.

6. The relevant facts have already been narrated in the first part of the judgment and are hence not being repeated. The sequence of events however assumes importance in view of the order of acquittal dated 14.11.2017 which was passed after the order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.06.2014 confirming the penalty of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

7. The question before us is whether the order of acquittal would have a bearing on the penalty of dismissal