UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHULESWAR PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.2.2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.347 of 2002 which was filed by Opp.Party No.1 in the instant writ petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned order of punishment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Senior Post Master, G.P.O., Cuttack/Disciplinary Authority reducing the time scale of pay of Opp.Party No.1 by one stage from Rs.3235/- to Rs.3170/- in the scale of pay Rs.2650/-4000/- for a period of one year with effect from 1.2.2002 with the conditions that he would not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of that period, the reduction would have effect of postponing his future increments of pay, and also the show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment issued by the Appellate Authority i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division, Cuttack, vide order dated 3rd May, 2002 in the appeal preferred by Opp.Party No.1 against the order of punishment.

(2.) The basis of allowing the O.A. by the Tribunal vide its impugned order is acquittal of opposite party No.1 in the Criminal Case. The Tribunal opined that a reading of the charges levelled against Opposite Party No.1 in both the proceedings, i.e., in the Criminal as well as Departmental Proceeding, prima facie shows that the allegations in both the charges are same. Even if they are not the same, the mode of proof to be made or has been made is through the same process, which has already been followed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and basing on the said evidence it has been held that there is no proof of the allegation levelled against the delinquent. The Tribunal also could see that the reasons basing on which the punishment was imposed on the delinquent, and further show cause notice was issued by the appellate authority, have already been vividly discussed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ultimately, the Tribunal reached at a conclusion that there is no proof. It is also observed that law is also well settled that the judgment delivered by the competent Court of Law, unless until it is set aside by the higher forum having jurisdiction, is binding on every body.

(3.) In view of the above finding and observation of the Tribunal, this Court is to consider in the instant matter as to whether the Departmental Proceeding can be initiated against the delinquent, in case he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court of the charges based on the same set of fact. In the instant case the disciplinary proceedings were held on the basis of the same/similar evidence, which was adduced by the prosecution in the Criminal case, in which opposite party No.1 was acquitted.