A criminal acquittal does not invalidate disciplinary findings proved on a preponderance of probabilities.

The applicant, a retired Senior Personnel Officer of South Central Railway, faced a CBI prosecution and a major-penalty departmental inquiry arising from an allegation that he demanded and accepted ₹10,000 as the first instalment of a bribe in connection with a compassionate appointment

The departmental Inquiry Officer found the charge of demanding and accepting ₹10,000 proved, although the alleged total bribe of ₹50,000 was not substantiated

The criminal court acquitted the applicant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt

After considering the inquiry record, the applicant’s representation, the acquittal judgment, and UPSC advice, the President imposed a penalty withholding 50% of the applicant’s monthly pension for ten years and 100% of his gratuity permanently

The applicant sought, among other relief, that the departmental proceedings be dropped because they arose from the same facts and evidence as the criminal case

1. Whether the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal case required the respondents to drop the departmental proceedings based on the same allegations and evidence

2. Whether the departmental finding and pension penalty could stand where the criminal court had acquitted the applicant

The Tribunal applied Rules 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, requiring railway servants to maintain absolute integrity and refrain from conduct unbecoming of a railway servant

It also considered Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, concerning the imposition of a pension-related penalty, and the principle that departmental proceedings and criminal trials serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof: guilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas departmental charges may be established on a preponderance of probabilities

Relying on Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, and Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, the Tribunal held that acquittal does not automatically bar or nullify disciplinary action; the result depends on the circumstances and the evidence in the departmental inquiry

It also referred to G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, but treated it as not establishing that departmental proceedings must be set aside in every case of acquittal

The Tribunal accepted that the criminal and departmental proceedings concerned substantially the same allegations, but held that the criminal acquittal did not itself require the disciplinary finding to be overturned.

The criminal court had concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt to the criminal standard; the departmental Inquiry Officer, applying the lower standard of preponderance of probabilities, found that the applicant demanded and accepted ₹10,000

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not deny visiting the lodge or receiving the money, and considered the inquiry finding sufficient to establish misconduct, notwithstanding that the alleged total bribe amount was not proved

It further observed that the penalty decision had taken account of the acquittal judgment and the applicant’s representation

It dismissed the OA as devoid of merit, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs