Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. To substantiate his submission that reference to said order would be an irrelevant consideration, our attention was drawn to judgment passed by Sessions Court in Spl.C.C.No.183/2004 (Annexure - Z) which was in respect of complaint by Sri. V. Senthil Kumar and not in respect of complaint by Sri. Vemula Madhukar. It was further submitted that acquittal in any case was on benefit of doubt and was not an honourable acquittal, which was lost sight of. Our attention was further drawn to order dated 21.11.2015 (Annexure - Z1) wherein application under Section 218 of Cr.P.C. for supplementary charge sheet against respondent herein came to be rejected. It was submitted that second charge sheet was rejected and consequently respondent was discharged. Even same was not honourable acquittal.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that challenging rejection of his request for engaging services of advocate in departmental enquiry, respondent had earlier filed W.P.No.21738/2005 which was disposed of on 07.10.2005 (Annexure - F) issuing direction to reconsider his request, as Presenting Officer was a Law Graduate. On rejection of request after reconsideration, respondent had filed W.P.No.7959/2006. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.06.2009 (Annexure - J) with observation that aggrieved party had to await conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. It was further submitted that respondent had also filed W.P.No.9239/2006 seeking quashing of Articles of charge dated 21.06.2006 disposed of on 30.06.2009 (Annexure - L) reserving liberty to seek for discharge, in case, he secures honourable acquittal by Criminal Court. It was submitted that W.P.No.2328/2007 seeking quashing of Articles of charge dated 21.06.2006 was disposed of on 23.06.2009 (Annexure - M) as having become infructuous in view of order of dismissal from service passed by disciplinary authority, reserving liberty to respondent to avail remedy of appeal. It was submitted that even W.P.No.5784/2007 filed by respondent was also dismissed on 23.06.2009.

16. Challenging conclusion of learned Single Judge that acquittal of respondent in criminal case would discharge him even in departmental proceedings, it was submitted that said reason apart from being illegal was also factually incorrect. It was submitted that enquiry report in instant case was submitted on 16.09.2007 and order of disciplinary authority came to be passed on 04.01.2008. But judgment of acquittal in Spl. C.C. 183/2004 came to be passed only on 31.07.2017. Therefore, subsequent acquittal of respondent would be of no consequence. It was further submitted that Criminal Court rejected Charge Sheet filed by CBI on technical grounds before trial and therefore discharge without trial cannot be treated as honourable acquittal. It was also contended that standard of proof in departmental proceedings and in criminal trial being different, acquittal in criminal case would not lead to acquittal in departmental proceedings. In support of said proposition, learned counsel relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalith Popli Vs. Canara Bank reported in AIR 2003 SC 1796 = 2003 (3) SCC 583 (para -16);

24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541:

1994 SCC (L&S) 594: (1994) 26 ATC 619]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.