Disciplinary proceedings against a public servant must cease if the charges are identical to those leading to an honourable acquittal in a criminal case, ensuring fairness in due process.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are clubbed together for disposal by the following judgment since a common question of law is involved.

2. W.P. (C) No. 8440 of 2022:Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned show cause notice dated 21^st March, 2022 as at Annexure-5 on the grounds stated.

2.1. Opposite party No.2 issued the show cause notice to the petitioner against the findings of the Enquiry Officer to which the petitioner submitted a reply. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 without judicial application of mind to the show cause reply issued Annexure-5 proposing a punishment of his dismissal from service and therefore, the same is unjustified and legally not tenable.

3. W.P. (C) No.28721 of 2023: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashment of the impugned disciplinary proceeding initiated against him and further directing the opposite parties to promote him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police from the date his juniors were promoted granting all consequential service benefits upon such promotion within a stipulated period.

4. At the relevant point of time, when the departmental proceeding was initiated, the petitioner was posted as Inspector in-charge, Sadar P.S., Berhampur. It is pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector Police and was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and never before any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, however, while posted as the Inspector of Police, Berhampur, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 was registered against him on 11^th December, 2010 under Section 13 (1) (d) & 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act corresponding to T.R. Case No. 11 of 2012 then pending in the court of learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Cuttack. The F.I.R. dated 11^th December, 2010 is at Annexure-1.It is further pleaded that the Superintendent Police, Berhampur initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner in the year 2012 on the self-same allegations and charge. A memo of charge was served on the petitioner as per Annexure-3.It is claimed that such proceeding was initiated pursuant to the Vigilance case, wherein, he was acquitted and therefore, the departmental action is liable to be quashed.

5. Initially, the petitioner made a representation to the authority concerned to discontinue the disciplinary proceeding on the ground stated therein but such request was turned down, hence, with no alternative, he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1482 (C) of 2014. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal by order dated 13^th May, 2015 at Annexure-4 directed the opposite parties to continue with the disciplinary proceeding but not to pass any final order till disposal of the Vigilance case. It is alleged that in spite of such an order in O.A. No. 1482(C) of 2014, the disciplinary proceeding was continued with the examination of witnesses. Such proceeding is further alleged to be in absence of the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the petitioner’s case for promotion was ignored and therefore, W.P. (C) No.3121 of 2021 was filed and it was followed by an order dated 7^th October, 2021 as at Annexure-5 w