Acquittal in criminal proceedings can necessitate reconsideration of disciplinary action when charges are identical.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. L. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Nayak, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order or punishment passed vide office order dated 09.12.2021 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect which is in the nature of a major penalty.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because of his implication in a Vigilance Case in Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2014, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.06.2014 under Annexure-1. Even though he was reinstated vide order dated 27.04.2015 under Annexure-2, but taking into account his implication in the Vigilance case, on self-same allegation, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memo dated 21.07.2015 under Annexure-3.

3.1. It is contended that during pendency of the Vigilance proceeding and prior to its disposal, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the proceeding and passed the impugned order of punishment vide order dated 09.12.2021 under Annexure-8, by imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated with self-same charges, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 10.02.2024 of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balangir in CTR No.3 of 2015. It is contended that since on self-same charges, petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, the order of punishment passed in the said proceeding with similar charge vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 under Annexure-8 requires a re-consideration in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( 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 ). 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 the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.”

3.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as follows:-

“47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of sett