Admission of guilt by charged employee allows disciplinary authority to impose punishment without regular inquiry; criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt does not entitle to service benefits or vitiate removal for misappropriation.

ORDER

By Mallika Arya, AM:

Through this Original Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02/04/2003 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No. 5 in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 203/00628/2022 vide order dated 17/11/2022. Respondent no. 3 has passed an order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2) wherein while deciding the representation (Annexure A/6) of the applicant he has stated as follows:

"there is no justifiable grounds to consider and decide the case in your favour and extend all service benefits including pension. Therefore, I decide that the order is not fit to be interfered with and the punishment of removal from service without compassionate allowance and granting all benefits including pension stands good. This dispose of representation (Annexure A-6) of the way in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble CAT / Jabalpur dated 17/11/2022.”

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in 1973 as Khalasi in the category of Class-IV and was working under the Loco Foreman. He participated in Departmental Promotional Examination and joined as Clerk in the office of Assistant Personnel Officer (Welfare), South East Central Railway Bhilai. The employees of Railways made a complaint regarding misappropriation of money. After the complaint, an enquiry was initiated and it was found that an amount of Rs. 12,20,875/- had been misappropriated by the applicant. FIR was lodged against the applicant and he was suspended from the service vide order dated 05.12.2002 (Annexure A/3). Charge Memorandum dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure A/4) was issued regarding holding of enquiry against the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968. On the basis of charges, the fact-finding enquiry committee was constituted with 3 equal rank officers. The fact finding committee did not provide the relied upon documents during the course of enquiry. The applicant was charged under section 409,420 of IPC. The State Government also registered a case against the applicant bearing Criminal Case No. 1498/2006. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure A/6). The State Government filed an appeal against acquittal before Sessions Court Durg in Cr. A. No.62/2019. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. A copy of the judgment dated 09/03/2022 is annexed as Annexure A/7. Thereafter, the applicant moved an Original application No.203/00628/2022 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure A/8) directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure A-6). The applicant contends that without conducting a fair enquiry, he has been removed from service which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Ramlakhan Sharma in SLP No. 2608/2012 dated 02.07.2018. Therefore, the applicant has prayed that order of termination dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure A/1) along with order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2) should be set aside. Further, the respondents should be directed to give monetary benefits from the date of termination of service till today.

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 203/628/2022 whic