Disciplinary penalties cannot stand where an employee has been acquitted in criminal proceedings on identical charges, preserving justice and fairness in administrative actions.

ORDER :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.3 vide order dated 20.09.2021 under Annexure-2, order dated 20.11.2021 so passed by the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.4 under Annexure-5 and order dated 11.11.2022 so passed by the Revisional Authority-O.P. No.5 under Annexure-7.

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Proceeding as well as Criminal Proceeding since were initiated on self-same charges, this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.4038 of 2020 under Annexure-3, passed an order staying the Disciplinary Proceeding till conclusion of the Criminal Proceeding in G.R. Case No.6 of 2020 so pending in the Court of learned JMFC (Rural), Rourkela.

4.1. It is contended that in the Criminal Proceeding so pending before the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela in G.R. Case No.6 of 2020, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 12.01.2021 under Annexure-8. It is contended that since on self-same charges, petitioner faced both the proceedings and he has been acquitted in the Criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 12.01.2021 under Annexure-8 and the same was also produced before the Disciplinary Authority, but without following the case law governing the field, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay vide order dated 20.09.2021 under Annexure-2.

4.2. Even though petitioner moved the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, but both the authorities without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s stand and the decisions governing the field, rejected the same vide order under Annexure-5 and 7.

4.3. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. /b>. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025), since petitioner faced both the proceedings on self- same charges, after being acquitted in the criminal proceeding, no order of punishment could have been passed against him in the Disciplinary Proceeding vide order under Annexure-2, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-5 and 7.

4.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ramlal has held as follows:-

“13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]

25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.

30. In view of the above, we declare that