An acquittal in criminal proceedings warrants reconsideration of disciplinary punishments based on identical charges, as failing to do so is deemed unjust.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application, call for record and

i. Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Party to show cause, as to why the Order of punishment under Annexure-3 and the consequential Order under ANNEXURE-6 shall not be quashed; and if the they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the Rule absolute;

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the O.P.to grant all consequential service benefits as admissible under the law.

iii. Issue any appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while continuing in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide charge memo dtd.30.12.2014, because of the allegation of bigamy made by the wife before Opp. Party No. 5. Thereafter, a criminal proceeding was also initiated on self-same charges in Odagaon P.S. Case No. 48 dtd.13.04.2015.

4.1. It is contended that though on self-same issue, Petitioner faced a criminal proceeding, but Opp. Party No. 5 without waiting for the result of the criminal proceeding, disposed of the criminal proceeding vide order dtd.21.04.2018 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one black mark.

4.2. It is however contended that since in the criminal proceeding Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021, after such acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 on 24.02.2022 under Annexure-5 with a prayer to set-aside the order of punishment, passed by Opp. Party No. 5 in his order dtd.20.04.2018 under Annexure-3. But Opp. Party No. 3 without proper appreciation of the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since on self-same charges Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding and question of bigamy was not proved, on self-same charges punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 5 vide order dtd.21.04.2018 should have been interfered with by Opp. Party No.

3 while dealing with the appeal.

4.4. It is contended that the appellate authority on the face of his acquittal in the criminal proceeding, also rejected the appeal without proper appreciation vide order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. /b>. (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), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the aforesaid two (2) decisions, the order of punishment passed in the disciplinary proceeding, is required to be set aside, as Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding.

4.5. 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 cour