The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of 'honorable acquittal' and its application in quashing a departmental enquiry based on the same set of facts and evidence as the criminal trial.

1. The twin reliefs claimed in this writ petition are: (i) to quash the departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the ground of his acquittal in a criminal case and (ii) to release the financial and retirement benefits including salary arrears as by this time he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, as projected by the petitioner, may be briefly noticed at the outset. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant Development Officer, Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd., he was placed under suspension as a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him for committing fraud and embezzlement of Rs. 1,60,000/- at Melaghar Branch under Clause 47(1) of the Service Rules of the Bank. The charge ran along the following lines. He had opened one SB Account on 2-4-2002 in the fictitious name of one Unus Mia by depositing Rs. 200/- with the help of Shri Khagendra Chandra Deb, Grade-IV, Melaghar Branch and had prepared a false challan of Rs. 1,60,000/- and using his official capacity compelled one Satish Ch. Das, Asstt. Grade employee to credit Rs. 1,60,000/- in the fictitious account of the said Unus Mia (A/C No. 6443) LF No. 27/37 as fictitiously opened by the said Sukumar Das on 2-4-2002.

3. It would appear that a criminal proceeding had earlier been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the Bank whereafter the police filed the charge sheet, which resulted in the commencement of the trial before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura (SDJM) U/s 468/471/477/380/420 IPC vide GR No. 90 of 2002. The learned SDJM by the judgment dated 4-2-2009 acquitted the petitioner. The State preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 5(2) of 2009 from the said judgment before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura on 30-11-2010. The appeal was dismissed on 30- 11-2010. Thereafter the Bank Authority filed Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, which was subsequently converted into Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2011. However, the appellant-Bank made a prayer and was granted permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal vide the order dated 13-1-2012.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the charges framed against him in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed against him by the learned SDJM which resulted in his honorable acquittal are based on the same set of facts and the same set of evidence and the ongoing departmental enquiry is, therefore, liable to be quashed. He also submits that the Presenting Officer also has failed to produce documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer which led to the halting of the enquiry after 27-1-2005. According to the petitioner, he made several representations to the General Manager of the Bank for revoking his suspension order as it had exceeded three years, more so, when the proceeding was stayed by the authority without any reason. It is pointed out by the petitioner that he has in the meantime retired from service on 30-9-2010 on attaining the age of superannuation, but no retiral benefits could be extended to him due to the pendency of the departmental enquiry. His representation to the Bank authority to extend his service for a period of one year including normal extension of 3 months along with medical fitness certificate was not considered. So are his representation for early payment of salary arrears and allowances including full retirement benefits since May, 2002. This is how this writ petition came to be filed by him for appropriate reliefs.

5. While contesting the writ petition, the main contentions of the State-respondents as pleaded by them in their counter are that acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not, ipso facto, render the disciplinary proceeding bad, and the petitioner cannot claim exoneration of the charge against him in a departmental enquiry on the ground of his acquittal in a