An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary proceedings against the same individual under service rules, as the burden of proof is different.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Military Engineering Services, is before this Court questioning the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in O.A. No.170/00542/2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting his challenge to Articles of charge dated 27.06.2024.

2. Heard Sri.A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Shubha S., Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Sri.A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the same set of allegations, witnesses and documents, the petitioner is acquitted of the same charge in Criminal Case No.65/2021 by judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, hence departmental proceedings is not maintainable. Learned counsel would submit that when the petitioner is acquitted of the identical or same charge, the disciplinary authority could not have initiated enquiry by issuing articles of charge on the same set of facts, witnesses and documents. Further, learned counsel would submit that the articles of charge would not indicate what is the violation or misconduct by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no new material before the Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental proceedings. In the absence of any other additional or new material, the Disciplinary Authority could not have initiated the enquiry by issuing articles of charge on the same material on which the petitioner is already acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal’s finding that a mere show-cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone is not proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of charge memo would prejudice the case of the petitioner is erroneous. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as articles of charge issued under memorandum dated 27.06.2024.

5. Per contra, Smt.Shubha S., Central Government Counsel would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would further submit that in a criminal proceedings, strict rules of evidence needs to be followed whereas in a departmental proceedings, charges are to be proved based on the preponderance of probabilities. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the Writ Petition Papers, the only question that would arise for consideration is as to, Whether the charge memo issued against the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority requires interference?

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.R.Holla argued that the disciplinary authority could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuance of the impugned charge memo, when the petitioner is already acquitted of the identical or same charge. However, it is a settled position of law that a mere acquittal in criminal proceeding does not preclude the disciplinary authority from initiating disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an identical fact situation in the case of AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE , [(2025) 4 SCC 111] wherein, charge memo was issued against the delinquent after he was acquitted in criminal proceedings, has held that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial stands on a higher pedestal and that in a disciplinary proceeding the guilt of the delinquent can be established