The central legal point established in the judgment is that when the evidence and facts in the departmental and criminal proceedings are the same, the acquittal in the criminal case should impact the departmental proceedings, and re-appreciation of evidence in the departmental enquiry after the acquittal is unjust and unfair.

JUDGMENT

Girish Agnihotri, J. (Oral) - The prayer in this writ petition is inter alia to quash the order dated 16.05.2016 whereby the punishment of stoppage of 5 future annual increments with permanent effect has been awarded in spite the fact that the petitioner stands honourably acquitted in the FIR/criminal case vide judgment dated 29.04.2015 (P3).

2. This Court for the reasons mentioned hereinunder is inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and allow the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by making reference to the pleadings in the writ petition submits that the petitioner had joined as Constable on 15.12.1991. He was thereafter promoted as Head Constable in the year 2010 and had unblemished service record of 22 years till 2013.

4. Learned counsel further submits that an FIR No.25 dated 25.10.2013 was registered under Section 7&13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From 2013 till 29.04.2015, the trial continued in the case FIR as aforementioned. It is the case of the petitioner that vide judgment dated 29.04.2015, the trial Court has acquitted the petitioner.

5. The pleaded case of the petitioner as submitted by his learned counsel is that on one hand, on 01.07.2015 (P4), the department took a decision accepting the judgment of the learned trial court by opining that it is not a fit case for filing of appeal yet vide memo dated 07.10.2015 (P5), the DSP issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is evident that it was after the judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2015 that by serving a charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry dated 07.10.2015, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He then submits that the enquiry officer vide its report dated 31.10.2015 (P6) held that the allegation leveled against the petitioner are proved but the reliance primarily was to the effect of re-appreciation of evidence which was examined by the trial court. The operative part of the enquiry report is reproduced as under:-

"Therefore, from the statements of Prosecution witnesses/Facts and from the documents it has been found that the allegations leveled against HC Mohd. Hussain No.47/Mewat who has been arrested Red handed while taking Rs.2000/- as bribe in FIR No. 25 dated 25.10.2013 under Section 7-13-49 of PC Act 1988 at SVB Gurgaon by Mosam son of Mormal resident of Rojka Meo regarding allowing of his dumpers carrying stones/rori to pass through area of PS Rojka meo, stands proved as during inquiry except the complainant of case Mosam son of Mormal resident of Rojka Meo, all the prosecution witnesses has confirmed the FIR & Police proceedings and it has been stated that the recovery of Rs.2000/- taken as bribe has been effected HC Mohd. Hussain No.47/Mewat in the presence of Duty Magistrate & Witnesses. Therefore, the allegation leveled against the HC Mohd. Hussain No.47/Mewat stands proved. Report is being presented."

6. On 23.11.2015, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of dismissal inter alia by observing as under:-

"I, B.Satheesh Balr, IPS Superintendent of Police, Mewat am to say that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against you HC Mohd. Hussain NO.47/MWT for having been arrested in case FIR No.25 dated 25.10.2013 u/s 7/13/49 Act PS SVB Gurgaon. The departmental enquiry was initiated vide this office order No. 17942-50 dated 30.10.2013 and entrusted to DSP Firojpur Jhirka. The enquiry officer submitted his finding report holding you guilty of charge. A copy of the finding report of enquiry report is enclosed herewith."

7. Thereafter vide order dated 08.12.2015 (P8), the competent authority proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. The operative part of the punishment order reads as under:-

"....During the course of person hearing the delinquent told all the facts and circumstances of the allegations leveled against him. He also told that he is innocent