Clean acquittal in criminal proceedings can nullify disciplinary actions when the charges and evidence are identical, reflecting the need for fair evaluation.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

4.1. It is contended that such a proceeding was initiated because of the husband of the Petitioner’s implication in the aforesaid Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd.04.12.2009.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that husband of the Petitioner prior to disposal of the vigilance proceeding was imposed with the punishment of one Black Mark and period of suspension from 05.12.2009 to 14.02.2011, was treated as such vide order dtd.18.10.2014 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8. Appeal preferred by the husband of the Petitioner was also rejected by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.3. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, husband of the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-11-Series, Petitioner seeking quashing of the order of punishment moved an application before Opposite Party No.2 on the ground that because of acquittal of her husband in the vigilance proceeding, the order of punishment passed on 18.10.2014 by Opposite Party No.3 is required to be set aside. Claim of the husband of the Petitioner, when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12784 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.07.06.2021 under Annexure-12, when directed for consideration of case of the husband of the Petitioner’s grievance, the same was rejected vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13 of Opposite Party No.2.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the departmental proceeding so initiated, the enquiry officer after conducting the inquiry, submitted the report under Annexure-4, holding therein that the charges against the husband of the Petitioner could not be established. However, on the face of such report submitted by the enquiry officer, the departmental authority-Opposite Party No.3 proceeded with the matter and imposed the punishment vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8.

4.5. The appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 so moved, also rejected the appeal vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.6. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, husband of the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018, he moved Opposite Party No.2, with a request to set aside the order of punishment so imposed vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure- 8, and confirmed vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10. However, such claim of the husband of the Petitioner was rejected without proper appreciation vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4.7. Placing reliance on 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), it is contended that Petitioner since was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding and such acquittal is not on the ground of benefit of doubt, but a case of clean acquittal, in view of the ratio decided in the above noted two cases, husband of the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for in the Writ Petition with quashing of the order of punishment so passed against husband of the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-8, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-10 and so also order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4.8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ram Lal 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