THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.377 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra Court appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.15065 of 2021, dated 30.12.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment of dismissal imposed on respondent No.1 (writ petitioner No.1) on 07.01.2021 for the reason that on similar facts, respondent No.1 was subjected to criminal case and he was honourably acquitted from the said case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/employer assailed the findings of the learned Single Judge by contending that the findings are running from paragraph No.10 to 13. If the said paragraphs are read carefully, it will be clear that only one finding was given in paragraph No.10 that the criminal case was pending on the very same facts on which the departmental enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat1 and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1618 were considered and relevant paragraphs were reproduced. By taking this Court to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Tank (supra), the sheet anchor of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that merely because a delinquent employee is acquitted in a criminal case, it will not ipso facto give him a right of reinstatement or setting aside of punishment order imposed on him pursuant to the departmental enquiry. The Court needs to examine whether the charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. There is no iota of discussion by the learned Single Judge on this aspect and after reproducing the judgments of the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge directly reached to the conclusion that the dismissal order dated 07.01.2021 needs to be set aside. Thus,

1 (2006) 5 SCC 446

the facts of the case were not tested on the anvil of the principles laid down in both the judgments of the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submits that in paragraph 10 therein, the learned Single Judge, indeed, has given a finding that the criminal case and departmental enquiry were founded upon the same facts. 6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. The finding of the learned Single Judge on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents reads thus:

“…This Court also finds that for the very same set of facts, the criminal case has been filed and after contested trial, the trial Court held that the charges against petitioner No.1 have not been proved and petitioner No.1 has been honorably acquitted.”

9. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that the only finding given by the learned Single Judge is that the facts of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry were same. If the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Supreme Court in G.M.Tank (supra) and Ram Lal (supra) are examined, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the factum of identical facts is not the only litmus test on the strength of which impact of acquittal on the disciplinary proceeding can be examined. After considering the judgment in G.M.Tank (supra), the Apex Court in Ram Lal (supra), opined as under:

“30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the sam