Service Law – criminal case Vs. departmental inquiry on the identical charges, same evidence, witnesses & circumstances – Effect of subsequent acquittal in criminal case on earlier dismissal in departmental inquiry.

The appellant was appointed as Constable on 15.12.1991.

On 2.9.2022, FIR for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC that the appellant had altered his date of birth in his 8^th standard marksheet to show his majority at the time of recruitment.

On 2.4.2003, the charge-sheet was issued in the departmental inquiry on the same set of allegations.

Five witnesses were examined in the departmental inquiry and they were also examined in the criminal trial.

By the order dated 31.3.2004, the appellant was dismissed from service.

In criminal case, the appellant was convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to three years imprisonment with fine.

However, on 24.8.2007, the Appellate Court acquitted the appellant from the criminal case.

In 2008, the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the dismissal in view of acquittal was dismissed.   This was confirmed in writ appeal.

Two questions were framed by the Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment – one on validity of inquiry and another important as to the effect of acquittal on the dismissal in departmental inquiry.

HELD

1. On consideration of the charges, evidence and record in paras 14 to 22, it was held that there was no alteration and that the explanation that overwriting in the application form was only correction of an inadvertent error was accepted.
2. On question no.2, after discussion in paras 23 to 27, it was found that the charges were identical, same witnesses of the inquiry were examined in the criminal trial and the evidence was the same.  The acquittal was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge. In the light of such acquittal the inquiry and dismissal cannot be allowed to stand. The dismissal order was quashed since allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.