Acquittal in criminal proceedings affects related disciplinary actions on identical charges; failing to recognize this may result in unjust penalties.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order dtd.30.06.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5, confirmed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.30.10.2021 under Annexure-7.

4. It is contended that because of the implication of the Petitioner in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 dtd.20.12.2011, the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.04.07.2012 vide Ganjam District Proceeding No. 30 of 2012.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the vigilance proceeding so initiated in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 dtd.20.12.2011, Petitioner was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.22.09.2015 so passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 56 of 2011. Copy of the judgment so filed by way of a memo be kept in record.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.22.09.2015, but in the disciplinary proceeding so initiated on self-same charges, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of two black marks vide order dtd.30.06.2019 of Opp. Party No. 2 under Annxure-5.

4.3. It is also contended that factum of acquittal of the Petitioner in the vigilance proceeding though was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2, but the same was not properly appreciated while imposing the order of punishment vide order under Annexure-5.

4.4. It is also contended that challenging such order of punishment, Petitioner though moved an appeal before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6, but the appellate authority as like the disciplinary authority also without proper appreciation of the factum of acquittal of the Petitioner in the vigilance proceeding, upheld the order of punishment while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.30.10.2021 under Annexure-7.

4.5. It is contended that since both the proceedings were initiated on self-same charges and Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.22.09.2015, 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), Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishment of two black marks.

4.6. 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 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)]

xxx xxx xxx

25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law