Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude disciplinary actions unless misconduct is independently substantiated; failure to establish such misconduct renders the dismissal legally untenable.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Writ Appeal arises from the judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2265 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal and the appellate order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur, and further directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits.

2. Heard Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants-State and Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner.

3. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent was serving as a Constable in the Odisha Police establishment. On the basis of an allegation arising out of Kandhamal Sadar P.S. Case No.68 dated 29.05.2015, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, he came under the scanner and was exposed to both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings.

4. The criminal case started with the alleged illegal transportation of ganja in a TATA Magic vehicle, wherein it was alleged that certain accused persons were involved in the transportation of contraband articles and during the course of investigation, the name of the respondent surfaced, allegedly on the statement of a co-accused. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of misconduct arising out of alleged involvement in narcotic trafficking, which was treated as grave misconduct under the Odisha Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959.

5. The respondent, apprehending prejudice on account of parallel proceedings, approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal seeking stay of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial. The Tribunal, vide order dated 29.12.2016, while permitting continuation of the departmental inquiry, restrained the authorities from passing final orders till the conclusion of the criminal case.

6. The criminal prosecution concluded in trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.59 of 2015. The prosecution examined multiple witnesses to establish conspiracy and abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The defence of the present respondent primarily rested on denial of involvement and plea of alibi, supported by documentary evidence and testimony indicating that during the relevant period he was undergoing official training. The defence also highlighted the absence of recovery from conscious possession, the absence of identification evidence, and the absence of corroborative material linking him to the seized contraband.

Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court recorded findings that though seizure of contraband ganja from the vehicle stood established, there was no material establishing nexus of the accused persons with the seized contraband. The court further found that the respondent had successfully established the plea of alibi by producing training records and supporting testimony. Consequently, by judgment dated 26.11.2018, the respondent and co-accused were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., recording that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges. The