The acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an individual from departmental punishment, as the standard of proof and the nature of evidence in disciplinary proceedings are different from those in criminal trials.

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

1. In the instant intra-Court appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the order of dismissal from service and the orders passed in appeal and revision have been affirmed and writ petition has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager in the services of the respondent/Bank. He was posted as Principal, Central Bank Officers Training College at Bhopal. An induction training program for newly recruited Probation Officer was undertaken for the session 2010. During the course of the said training program, the Executive Director undertook a lecture of newly recruited Probationer Officers. On account of certain undisciplined behaviour and improper dress code of the probationers, the Executive Director had expressed his displeasure and conveyed to General Manager HRD to the appellant and instructed him to take strict action against such officers. It is stated that in the capacity of Principal of college, the petitioner issued notices to every probationer on 12.05.2010 calling upon them to adhere strict discipline within the college during training hours.

3. It is contended by the appellant that because of the said notice, one Probationer training officer namely Ku. Manju Sharma lodged a false police complaint against him on 16.05.2010 alleging that the petitioner had caught hold of her hand and tried to misbehave with her. On the basis of complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant in the Court of Law.

4. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the respondents to the effect that he with an un-welcomed sexual determined method had touched the said officer while she was attending training programme and thus, he committed misconduct under the Regulation of the respondent Bank. The other charge was that because of the registration of the FIR against him, the said act has tarnished the image of the Bank as well as Central Bank Of India, Training Center, Bhopal. The appellant filed a writ petition W.P.No.2241/2011(s) before this Court for stay of the departmental inquiry instituted against him pending finalisation of the criminal trial. The departmental inquiry was stayed by order dated 03.02.2011.

5. The appellant was convicted by the Magistrate on 06.02.2012 under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of 18 months. The said conviction and sentence was challenged in the appeal, the sentence was suspended in the appeal. The appellant has been acquitted by the Court of Additional Session Judge by order dated 23.01.2013. After the acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.02.2013 requested for reinstatement of his services. The appellant was reinstated in service and thereafter the departmental inquiry was revived by order dated 20.06.2013, a letter issued by the inquiry officer.

6. The appellant filed W.P. No.13254/2013 for quashing of the departmental enquiry on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 13.8.2013 directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner for dropping departmental enquiry and reinstatement in accordance with law. A review petition No.806/2013 was filed by the respondents which was dismissed by order dated 13.10.2013. Thereafter, the respondents decided the representation and rejected the prayer of the appellant to close the departmental enquiry and the departmental enquiry continued. The appellant was punished with the order of dismissal on 7.6.2014. Departmental appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by order dated 4.9.2014. The appellant also filed review before the respondent No.2 which was also dismissed by order dated 29.10