IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to reinstatement in disciplinary proceedings unless charges and evidence are identical.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. In view of the difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench, the Chief Justice has referred the matter to this Court.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the view expressed by the senior Judge of the Division Bench should be accepted. He has referred to the facts of the case. He has contended that, the writ petitioner was appointed as a constable in the India Reserved Battalion, in the month of January 2012. Two complaints had been made against the writ petitioner on the allegation that on January 14, 2012, the writ petitioner came in front of the house of a lady, under influence of alcohol and used unparliamentary words against her and threatened dire consequences. A First Information Report bearing NC F.I.R No. 31 of 2012 dated January 12, 2012 under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the writ petitioner. A second First Information Report was initiated on January 31, 2012 on the allegation that the writ petitioner on January 31, 2012 without knocking on the door entered the room of the de facto complainant when she was alone and molested her. A criminal proceeding had been initiated against the writ petitioner under Section 107/106/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the writ petitioner also.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, with regard to such alleged incidents, preliminary enquiry was conducted by a memorandum dated May 14, 2012. Petitioner had been placed under suspension on February 1, 2012 followed by regular disciplinary proceedings initiating against him by a memorandum dated January 24, 2013. Writ petitioner had submitted a representation dated February 6, 2013 where he had denied the allegations against him. In such enquiry, two prosecution witnesses had been examined. Subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner had submitted a letter with the Disciplinary Authority accepting the allegations contained in Article I and II of the memorandum of charge as the de facto complainant already pardoned him.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted, the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration only the first part of the letter pleading guilty and gave a complete go bye to the procedure postulated in Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order dated February 28, 2014 dismissing the writ petitioner from service. Writ petitioner had preferred an appeal on May 9, 2014 where the Appellate Authority by an order dated June 7, 2014 mechanically affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, the criminal case on the basis of the F.I.R No. 40/2012 dated January 31, 2012 culminated in the order of acquittal dated November 14, 2017. On acquittal, the writ petitioner had approached the authorities to review the order taking into consideration the judgement of the criminal court. The authorities by a memorandum dated March 7, 2018 had rejected such request of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had thereafter approached the Tribunal by way of OA 351/622/2018 which was dismissed by the order dated August 28, 2023.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, the nature of charges in the disciplinary proceedings as also before the criminal court in more or less identical, the order of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court, allowed the Disciplinary Authority to revisit their decision of punishment and reinstate the writ petitioner in service. He has relied upon 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1618 (Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) in support of his contention.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the view taken by the learned senior