An acquittal in a criminal trial does not invalidate disciplinary actions, which are based on a lower standard of proof, allowing for dismissal even without a criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was an employee of the CISF Unit and while working as Constable/GD of C'COY' of the CISF, who joined service on 14.02.2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on various allegations and charges as per Ext.P1 memorandum of charge. One of the allegations was that the petitioner overstayed the sanctioned leave period of 5 days from 15.10.2014 to 19.10.2014 without prior consent of the competent authority. The second charge was that the petitioner tarnished the image of the CISF before the general public as well as local police by showing sexual gestures against a woman in a public place and thereby degrading the dignity of a woman. The 3^rd charge is that he was found inebriated, hostile and not at all in control of himself in a public place and further that the petitioner has not informed about the registration of the crime against him, to the employer. Ext.P2 reply was filed by the petitioner denying all the charges. Thereafter, Ext.P5 final order was issued, wherein it is held that all the charges are proved against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred, but the order was confirmed as per Ext.P6 and the revision filed was also dismissed as per Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court filing W.P.(C)No. 19970 of 2018, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter. Thereafter, Ext.P9 representation was filed by the petitioner and without considering any of the contentions in Ext.P9 and the directions in Ext.P8 judgment, the request of the petitioner was again rejected as per Ext.P10. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court filing this writ petition.

3. The petitioner would submit that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the charges and that this Court in Ext.P8 judgment has taken note of the fact the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in respect of indecent behaviour towards a women, and upheld the other two charges against the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to approach the CISF authorities with a prayer for imposition of a lesser punishment. The observation made by this Court in Ext.P8 was not at all considered by the authorities while issuing Ext.P10 order.

4. The learned DSG appearing for the respondents submits that the direction in Ext.P8 judgment has been taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P10 order and the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in a criminal case, is not a reason to interfere with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is well settled principle of law that an order of dismissal can be passed, even if the delinquent official has been acquitted of the criminal charges. In support of the same, the learned DSG relies on the judgment inthe State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Heem Singh [ (2021) 12 SCC 569 ]

5. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a member of the Disciplinary Force. The charges leveled against him are, he overstayed the sanctioned leave period of 5 days from 15.10.2014 to 19.10.2014 without prior consent of the competent authority, the petitioner was in a inebriated condition and totally unable to control himself, the registration of Crime No.1145/2014 of Udayamperoor Police Station for indecent behaviour towards a women degrading the dignity of women by sexual gestures in a public place and the other charge is that the said registration of the crime and the arrest of the petitioner was not repor