Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate a valid disciplinary dismissal based on misconduct, particularly in cases of moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

An employee of respondent organization, who has suffered removal from service on account of proven misconduct of bribery is invoking intra-Court appellate jurisdiction for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 31.07.2024 whereby his following two writ petitions have been negatived:

(i) In W.P.(C) No.17035 of 2016 he had called in question the punishment order dated 19.12.2014 as affirmed in departmental appeal dismissed on 30.08.2016;

(ii) in W.P.(C) No. 18538 of 2021 he had laid a challenge to the management’s order dated 09.04.2021 whereby his representation for reinstatement after acquittal in the criminal appeal was dismissed.

2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS

(a) The delinquent employee gained entry into service of respondent organization as Accounts Officer with effect from 23.12.2006. He earned promotion as Assistant Manager (Finance) in due course. In a CBI Raid he was found red handed on 28.08.2012 whilst accepting a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from a person, namely, Sugris Singh associated with the tender in question. Appellant happened to be one of the members of the Tender Committee.

(b) Appellant was served with a Charge Memo on 26.03.2013 in relation to the misconduct in question. A disciplinary inquiry was held at the hands of a retired official of the organization and he was found guilty. A copy of Inquiry Report dated 14.08.2014 was served on him and he submitted his representation against the same on 27.09.2014. The Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order of removal from service on 23.12.2014. Appellant’s departmental appeal also came to be disfavoured vide order dated 30.08.2016. This he had challenged in W.P.(C) No. 17035 of 2016, which is not the subject-matter of this appeal.

(c) Above apart, appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable inter alia under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. No. 19A of 2012. The Special CBI Court at Dhanbad vide order dated 21.01.1019 had entered conviction and sentenced him to undergo a simple imprisonment for two years coupled with levy of fine of Rs.50,000/-. However, a learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court vide order 29.09.2020 allowed his Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 138 of 2019 and set aside order of conviction & sentence. Thus, he was acquitted of the criminal charges.

(d) Appellant made a representation seeking his reinstatement in service on the basis of acquittal order contending that his was a case of honourable acquittal. The same having been rejected by the Management, W.P.(C) No. 18538 of 2021 came to be filed. As already mentioned above, both the writ petitions were heard together and came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. We repeat that the order in WP(C) No. 18538 of 2021 alone is put in challenge before us.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the delinquent- employee urged the following grounds for the invalidation of impugned order:

(a) The entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as under the extant Conduct Rules, it was not open to the Management to appoint an ex-employee of the organization as the Inquiry Officer and therefore, everything would fall down on the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit meaning nothing comes out from nothing.

(b) The Management ought to have examined the complainant (Shri Sugriw Singh) as a witness to prove demand & acceptance of bribe and that having not been done, the finding of guilt is vitiated. Similarly, all the persons associated with the trap event ought to have been examined; no explanation is offered for their non- examination.

(c) Second show cause notice after the acceptance of the recommendation of Inquiry Officer is a sine qua non for passing the punishment order. No