The main legal point established is that acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action, and reinstatement after acquittal is not automatic, depending on the service rules.

D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No. 2348 of 2010 dated 12th February, 2015 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Single Judge has not interfered with the order of dismissal passed by the respondents by way of disciplinary action taken against this appellant for the charges levelled against him, which are at Annexure3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after issuing the chargesheet Enquiry Officer gave his report and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal of this appellant dated 6th March, 1999. Departmental appeal preferred by this appellant was also dismissed on 6th October, 1999. Charges levelled against this appellant (original petitioner)-delinquent was about financial irregularities for which criminal action was also initiated and this appellant was ultimately, honourably acquitted in G.R. No. 854 of 1992 vide order dated 30th July, 2008 (Annexure7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and therefore, representation was made by this appellant for his reinstatement and for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Appellate Authority and as the same was not done by the respondents, a writ petition was preferred by this Court being W.P.(S) No 2348 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12th February, 2015 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that once there is an acquittal from the criminal charges and if in the departmental proceedings charges are similar in nature the respondents cannot terminate the services of this appellant. Moreover, looking to the Enquiry Officer's report, charges nos. 5, 6 and 7 were not proved whereas, the disciplinary authority has not agreed with the report given by the Enquiry Officer. For this authority notice should have been issued by the disciplinary authority, specific reasons should have been assigned by the disciplinary authority otherwise, the disciplinary authority cannot disagree with the report given by the Enquiry Officer.

3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that more than one punishment have been inflicted upon this appellant viz. removal from service, not to treat the period of suspension as 'on duty' and there is no such punishment prescribed under the Rules applicable to the State Bank of India. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellate that even otherwise also, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant is shockingly disproportionate or is unreasonably excessive. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No 2348 of 2010 dated 12th February, 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents-Bank that the charges levelled against this appellant (original petitioner)delinquent in the departmental proceedings and on the criminal side are not the same. Moreover, the standard of evidence in a departmental proceedings is based upon principle “preponderance of probabilities” whereas, on a criminal side the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that serious are the misconducts committed by this appellant which are financial irregularities and that have been proved as per the Enquiry Officer's report except charge no. 5, 6 & 7 and looking to the nature of charges which are proved during the