Acquittal in criminal proceedings on charges identical to those in disciplinary actions necessitates a re-evaluation of the disciplinary decision to avoid injustice.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.25.10.2025 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner for withdrawal/cancellation of the order of punishment imposed against the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding vide office order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7 was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging the self-same order passed in the disciplinary proceeding on 09.12.2021 under Annexure-7, Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16258 of 2022. This Court taking into consideration the fact that in the criminal proceeding so initiated on self-same charges, Petitioner since has been acquitted, the disciplinary authority was directed to take a fresh decision with regard to the punishment imposed vide the impugned order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7. Such an order was passed by this Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofRam 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).

4.1. 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 will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.

xxx

xxx

xxx

30. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.”

4.2. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Ram Lal Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025) has held as follows:-

“47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well- established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proc