Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an individual of the penalty imposed in a departmental enquiry. The principle of natural justice may not warrant compliance in cases where it would not change the final outcome or decision.

1. Shri Bharat Singh-respondent herein and appellant in cross appeal No. 388/2002, an employee of National Seeds Corporation Limited (a Government of India undertaking) was held guilty by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, vide judgment dated 17/02/1977, of offence punishable under Section 409, RPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000/-. He was found to have while discharging his official duties during 1969-1971, embezzled an amount of Rs 9417.75 received by him on account of sale proceeds and fraudulently reported to have been deposited with National Seed Corporation Limited, Regional Office Chandigarh.

2. On the allegation of criminal breach of trust levelled against the respondent during the course of his official duties, he was placed under suspension and a departmental inquiry initiated against him. Soon after respondent was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 409 RPC, the respondent was dismissed from service vide Order no. 5(49)/71-Vig/NSC Dated 26/05/1977.

3. The respondent immediately after he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, questioned the trial court judgment through medium of criminal appeal before Learned Sessions Judge, Jammu. The appeal was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu who vide judgment dated 26/12/1996 accepted the appeal and set aside the trial court judgment, acquitting the respondent of all charges.

4. Encouraged by his acquittal, respondent on 14/10/1998 filed a writ petition being SWP 2152/1998, questioning Order No. 5(49)/71-Vig/NSC dated 26/05/1977, whereby he was dismissed from service. He on the strength of averments made in the petition sought a writ of "certiorari" quashing the aforesaid order and a writ of "mandamus" commanding the respondent in the writ petition (National Seeds Corporation Limited ) to allow him to resume his duty and pay him all emoluments including unpaid salary and also to accord consideration to his promotion.

5. The main plank of the petitioner's case was that the allegations leveled against him were false and frivolous, and as he was acquitted of all charges, the dismissal order dated 26th May 1977, was liable to be set aside. It was pleaded, that once charge-sheet was dismissed and accused acquitted, dismissal order passed on the same allegation found to be without substance by the appellate court, would be stripped of its force. He claimed to have submitted his joining report after his appeal against sentence and conviction allowed but was not permitted to resume his duty.

6. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents in the writ petition (present appellant) on the ground that the criminal misappropriation of Rs 9417.75 subject matter of the charge-sheet filed on 23/10/1972 and decided on 17/02/1977 was not the only case of mis-appropriation detected against the writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal). It was pleaded that another case of mis-appropriation of Rs 3127.50, led to registration of an FIR with P.S CBI and the charge-sheet (file No. 216/Challan) filed on conclusion of investigation on 26/11/1977 taken to its logical end and respondent, convicted of the offence punishable under Section 409 RPC vide judgment dated 17/02/1977 and that the appeal against the convictional sentence dismissed vide judgment dated 20/08/1985 and conviction and sentence upheld. However, criminal revision registered as criminal revision No. 73/1985 against the trial court and appellate court judgments was accepted vide judgment dated 1/10/1992 and conviction and sentence was set aside.

7. The counter affidavit referred to one more case of embezzlement detected against respondent involving mis-appropriation of amount of Rs 4039.20. The appellant was claimed to have initiated enquiry against the respondent and framed charge-sheet vide Memo No. 5(1)/71/VIS/ NSC dated 19/08/75 and duly served it on the respondent. The copy of the enquiry report was said to have been also served on the respondent on