( 1 ) A question of great importance relating to service jurisprudence: as to whether a Government servant against whom a criminal prosecution was instituted even if he secures acquittal can yet be proceeded against in a departmental proceeding and dismissed from service on the same oral evidence and on the same material by reaching a conclusion just contrary to the conclusion reached by the Criminal Court by recording a contrary finding has knocked at the door in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by a police Constable who was acquitted by a Court of law on disbelieving prosecution witnesses and yet on the same oral evidence was dismissed by the State Government.

( 2 ) RELIANCE has been placed on a number of authorities to show that there is no absolute bar to the initiation of departmental proceeding even in cases where a government servant has been acquitted. (State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. S. Sree Rama Rao A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1723 Motising Chhagusing Vaghela v. S. D. Mehta 7 G. L. R. 409 and Bhauro Dagadu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra 74 B. L. R. 304 ). Of course this proposition that acquittal in a Criminal Court does not operate as an absolute bar to a departmental proceeding is now firmly entrenched and needs no reiteration. The heart of the problem however lies elsewhere. It needs to be emphasised that none of the aforesaid cases not one of them supports the much wider proposition canvassed on behalf of the State that on the same material and on re-appreciation of the same oral evidence without anything more it is open to a disciplinary authority to take just the contrary view to the judicial view taken by the Court of law and notwithstanding the order of acquittal to record a finding of guilt against the delinquent and to dismiss him from service. The proposition is an astounding proposition for if it were to be upheld even the finding of acquittal rendered by the Supreme Court may be disregarded and a disciplinary authority say a Deputy Superintendent of Police may take the view that it is open to him to believe the evidence of witnesses not believed by the competent Court and to act on the same evidence and to hold a person guilty notwithstanding that the Criminal Court came to the conclusion let on the very same evidence the accused was entitled to acquittal and the decision was confirmed by even the High Court and the Supreme Court. If this were accepted as a true position of law it would wholly undermine respect for the judicial administration. Nay it would even promote disrespect for the institution of law and justice. What then is the true position of law if an acquittal does not operate as an absolute bar to the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding and at the same time the disciplinary authority cannot hold the Government servant concerned guilty on the same evidence and the same material ? The true position would appear to lie within the hinterland between the two extremes. A departmental proceeding cannot be initiated as a matter of course or without anything more when the Court of law has acquitted the delinquent. It can be undertaken only if special circumstances are shown to exist. It would not be desirable to exhaustively adumberate these circumstances. But the illustrative or typical situations can be by and large conceived. For instance- (1) the Court might have acquitted the accused on the ground of failure to obtain the requisite sanction or (2) the acquittal may be grounded on the circumstance that there was no sufficient evidence by reason of the fact that the prosecution witnesses had not remained present and the request made for adjournment to enable the prosecution to examine witnesses was not granted. (3) The charge was defective and trial was vitiated on account of prejudice occasioned to the accused. (4) When the case is that of circumstantial evidence and acquittal is rendered by extending benefit of doubt on the ground that the