K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Ram Lal (the appellant) was a Constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 9th Battalion, Jodhpur. He was appointed on 15.12.1991. A First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered on 02.09.2022 against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Soon thereafter, Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.12.04 16:53:42 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified on 02.04.2003, a chargesheet in a departmental enquiry was also issued.

3. The identical allegation in both the proceedings was that the Appellant altered his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8th standard marksheet. It was alleged that this was done to project himself as having attained majority at the time of the recruitment. The appellant denied the charges.

4. Asked about the overwriting in the application, the appellant stated that it was possible that in the application form he might have written initially as 21.04.1974 and thereafter corrected it to 21.04.1972. He however maintained that his date of birth was 21.04.1972.

5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of 31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain.

6. At the criminal trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years’ imprisonment along- with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur [‘Appellate Judge’], vide judgment dated 24.08.2007, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant.

7. The appellant, thereafter, represented for his reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August, 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31.03.2004, the order of the Appellate Authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the above-said orders.

8. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us.

Questions for consideration:

9. The following two questions arise for consideration:

a) Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justified? b) On the facts of the case, what is the effect of the acquittal, ordered by the Appellate Judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry?

10. We have heard Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned counsel for the State. Learned counsels have reiterated their contentions before the Courts below.

Legal Position:

11. We have examined both the questions independently.

We are conscious of the fact that a writ court’s power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited.

The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. [See State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023:INSC:766 = 2023 (11) Scale 530]. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of ju