Acquittal in criminal case on identical facts as departmental proceedings, after full trial disproving charges on merits, requires setting aside disciplinary punishment despite differing proof standards.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for setting aside the punishment of removal from service by the impugned order, dated 17.01.2018, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order and consequently direct the respondents to pass an order to reinstate him in service and also permit him to retire and pay all benefits within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and to pass such further order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant was working as an Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department, Government of Puducherry. On 29.12.1984, a charge memo was issued to the Applicant alleging lapses in the discharge of his duties, resulting in a monetary loss of Rs.1,33,000/- in respect of 15 fair price shops, by preparing false permits for the lifting of palmolein oil, a controlled commodity. A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the charges were held to be proved. By an order dated 27.01.1986, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor removed the Applicant from service. The appeal preferred by the Applicant was dismissed by an order dated 04.11.1987. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant filed OA No.632 of 1998 before this Tribunal, which quashed the said order and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to determine afresh the gravity of the misconduct vis-à-vis the length of service rendered by the Applicant. Pursuant to the said order, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 23.07.1992, confirmed the earlier order of removal from service. Challenging the same, the Applicant preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble President of India under Rule 24(1)(i) read with Rule 24(1)(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said appeal remained pending without any final order being passed. The charge sheet had been issued based on a criminal complaint lodged by the CBI against the Applicant and others. Subsequently, the Applicant was acquitted of all criminal charges by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 25.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 909–910 of 2003. Thereafter, the Applicant made repeated representations to the authorities seeking disposal of the appeal dated 19.08.1992 in light of the acquittal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As no action was taken, the Applicant filed OA No.1256 of 2017 before this Tribunal which by an order, dated 02.08.2017, directed the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, the 3rd Respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the Applicant’s appeal. Hence, the present OA.

3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the 3rd Respondent failed to appreciate that both the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were founded on an identical and common set of facts and allegations, and that the charges levelled against the Applicant in the departmental inquiry were the very same as those considered by the Criminal Court. In such circumstances, it was unjust, unfair, and arbitrary on the part of the Respondents not to revoke the order of punishment, particularly in view of the Applicant’s acquittal in the criminal case.

4. Learned counsel further submitted th