A subsequent criminal acquittal cannot reopen a departmental dismissal that has attained finality.

The petitioner, a Junior Telecom Officer, was dismissed from service on 17 August 2005 following departmental proceedings concerning an alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge to the dismissal in 2006; the petitioner did not challenge that decision further, and his mercy petition was rejected in 2007.

After his acquittal in the criminal case in 2014, he sought review of the penalty and reinstatement.

The department treated the request as a review under Rule 29A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and rejected it in 2017.

The CAT dismissed his challenge to that rejection, leading to the present petition.

Whether the petitioner could use a review request, made after the dismissal had been affirmed by the CAT and attained finality, to reopen the penalty of dismissal

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal in the criminal proceedings entitled him to review of the departmental penalty or reinstatement

The Court considered Rule 29A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which the petitioner’s request had been treated as a review.

It applied the principles that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, and that departmental charges are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities while criminal charges require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It further held that a later acquittal, by itself, does not undo a departmental penalty that has attained finality; it distinguished Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025, because in that case the acquittal preceded the dismissal, whereas here the acquittal followed the dismissal and its confirmation by the CAT.

The dismissal had been affirmed by the CAT, and the petitioner had not pursued a further challenge; the order had therefore attained finality.

In the Court’s view, allowing the later review request to reopen the penalty would effectively reverse the final CAT decision.

The acquittal occurred years after the dismissal and did not, by itself, invalidate the departmental findings or penalty.

The Court accordingly found Maharana Pratap Singh distinguishable because the acquittal there preceded the dismissal.

The petitioner’s renewed challenge to the fairness of the original inquiry did not alter the finality of the dismissal order.

It dismissed the petition.