Departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal trials; acquittal in a criminal case on benefit of doubt does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action based on the preponderance of probabilities, and courts should not re-appreciate evidence in such matters unless the penalty shocks the conscience of the court.

Order

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of termination and appellate orders with reinstatement and consequential benefits. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 02.02.1999 (Annexure No. A-01) passed by the Respondent No. 03/Sr. General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Government of India, Kanpur Nagar and appellate order dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure No. A-02) passed by the Respondent No. 02/Additional Director General, Ordinance Factory and Member Appellate Authority, Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, 10-A, Shaheed K Bose Road, Kolkata.

(II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the Respondent Authorities to reinstate the applicant in service treating in regular service with all consequential benefits and pay salary month to month to the applicant as admissible in accordance with law.

(III) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(IV) issue award the costs of this original application to the applicant.”

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Kailash Nath Tiwari, was appointed on 07.09.1991 as a Class IV employee in the Ordnance Factory, Kanpur Nagar, and rendered satisfactory service until his arrest on 05.07.1995 in Case Crime No. 27/1995 under Sections 18 /20 of the NDPS Act , in which he was subsequently acquitted vide judgment dated 29.10.2007. Consequent to the arrest, he was suspended vide order dated 08.07.1995 and placed under deemed suspension on 17.09.1995, followed by issuance of a charge sheet dated 19.02.1996 and submission of an ex parte inquiry report dated 15.10.1998, culminating in termination of service vide impugned order dated 02.02.1999, without service of documents or affording opportunity of hearing. His appeal dated 09.01.2008 was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority itself on 12.02.2009, which was subsequently set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 416/2009 vide order dated 08.08.2018, with a direction to reconsider the appeal under Rule 27(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant thereafter filed a fresh appeal dated 23.08.2018, which was rejected vide order dated 21.02.2019 without due consideration of the acquittal, binding precedents, or procedural safeguards. The applicant contends that no oral inquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the termination was based solely on an ex parte report despite his acquittal, thereby rendering the proceedings violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. Being aggrieved by the impugned termination order dated 02.02.1999 and the appellate order dated 21.02.2019, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned termination order dated 02.02.1999 and the appellate order dated 21.02.2019 are vitiated on account of procedural irregularities, non-service of charge sheet and inquiry report, and denial of opportunity of hearing. It was contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte without examining any witnesses, and the applicant was terminated solely on the basis of an inquiry report despite his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case vide judgment dated 29.10.2007. It was further submitted that the rejection of the statutory appeal was mechanical and non-speaking, and failed to consider binding precedents mandating oral inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice. The applicant, having been exonerated of criminal charges, is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the