Acquittal in criminal cases does not bar disciplinary action, which requires a lower standard of proof based on preponderance of probabilities.

ORDER

Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)

The applicants have filed this original application, seeking the following relief(s):

“a) The Charge sheet dated 03.06.2014 issued by GDS(P) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore the same may be quashed.

b) Enquiry report dated 20.04.2015 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same may be quashed.

c) Order of punishment being No. 2889/C-13013/PKM/FCS/2014 dated 28.09.2015 issued by Director General (GSI) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore the same may be quashed.

d) Order passed by the Apellate Authority dated 18.1.22 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same may be quashed.

e) Order do issue directing the respondents to treat the period from 03.07.2008 till 28.09.2015 as on duty and to grant all consequential benefits.

f) The respondents may be directed to refix pension and other pensionary benefits with arrear.”

2. The applicant, who was working as Store Superintendent (Tech.) in the Geological Survey of India, was initially suspended with effect from 03.07.2008 vide order dated 14.07.2008 under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 since he was detained under CBI custody exceeding 48 hours on 03.07.2008. He was then served a chargesheet dated 05.03.2009 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 containing the following article of charge:-

“Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee SS(T) (under suspension) GSI, CHC(PID), Kolkata in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- while processing to challans for the supply of toner cartridge of Samsung Printers and ink cartridge and toner cartridge of HP brand in the office of the DDG, PID GSI Kolkata has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-from Shri Krishanu Roy Supplier and Proprieter of M/s Syston Indicorp of 9F/1, B T Road, Kolkata 700002 on 03.07.2008 and in view of his said Shri Mukherjee was arrested by a CBI trap team on 3.07.2008 and detained in the Judicial Custody up to 29.07.2008.

Thus, Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, SS(T) (under suspension), GSI, CHQ, Kolkata has shown lack of integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of govt. servant in contravention of Rule-3(I) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Con) Rules, 1964.”

Thereafter, the applicant received the enquiry report dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure A/1) against which he submitted his representation. The inquiry culminated into a ‘Penalty of Removal from Government Service’ upon the applicant vide order dated 16.11.2011. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said order of punishment on 02.01.2012 in supplement to his previous representation/appeal dated 26.12.2011. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 635/2012 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 03.12.2013 (Annexure A/2) by quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order of punishment. This Tribunal had further directed the respondents, in its order dated 03.12.2013, as under:-

“There is no supporting evidence or finding on the allegation that the applicant had "demanded" and accepted "illegal gratification".

It is held in Mukut Bihari (supra) that "demand" of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence, and "mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused", unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was "voluntarily taken as a bribe". The findings of the EO are thus not based on sound reasoning. The enquiry report thus deserves to be quashed.

We also find that the CBI discharged the applicant on technical ground. However in view of the ratio of the cited decisions we quash the enquiry report with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law and get the allegatio