An acquittal in a criminal case can invalidate a departmental dismissal if both proceedings are based on the same facts, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial findings.

ORDER

The matter was enlisted in final-hearing-cases-list. The learned counsel for the rival parties were heard on 08.08.2024 and today the order is being pronounced.

2. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry inflicting punishment of dismissal from service. An appeal preferred by the petitioner also faced dismissal. Ergo, this petition was filed.

3. The sole ground of challenge to the order of punishment was that on the same set of charges, a criminal case was registered and the petitioner was tried and ultimately was acquitted. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the finding given by the Court which tried the criminal case dealing with the same charge, that has been alleged against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, such finding of Court acquitting the petitioner from criminal charges is binding upon the department and as such the order passed by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding is required to be quashed.

4. In contrast, Shri Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 has submitted that although the Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that the finding given in criminal case acquitting the accused is binding upon the department, but in each and every case such analogy cannot be made applicable and the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances underlying in the case at hand. He has also raised an objection that the petitioner was an employee of Cooperative Society i.e. Marketing Federation registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and as such the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. According to him, the petitioner should have raised a dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Society instead of approaching this Court.

5. No other point was argued by the parties.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, two questions emerged to be adjudicated in this petition.

(i) Whether the petition is maintainable against the order of dismissal of an employee working under the respondent organization which is a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960? and

(ii) Whether the judgment of acquittal in a criminal case having effect of setting aside the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry because both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence?

7. It is a case in which the petitioner was dismissed from service after conducting a regular departmental enquiry against him alleging that when he was posted as Godown In-charge at Chhindwara, he caused a loss to the respondent organization to the tune of Rs.5,42,533/-. As per the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure-P/2) the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of dismissal from service as he caused loss to the respondent organization to the tune of Rs.19,20,217/-.

8. From the charges levelled against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry, it reflects that when he was posted as Godown In-charge at Chhindwara, he caused a loss to the respondent organization to the tune of Rs.5,42,533/- and as such Shri Mishra when posted as District Marketing Officer at Chhindwara then he caused loss to the respondent organization and on the same set of charges a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, in which, same set of witnesses were also examined. In a criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused/petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Ramlal Vs. State of Rajsthan and others, Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) No.33423 of 2018, the petitioner