Acquittal on identical criminal charges renders departmental findings unjust and necessitates reinstatement without back wages.

The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant in the CISF, was served a charge memo on 15/03/2012 alleging: (I) establishing physical relations with a complainant (Ms. Vaishali) under false pretext of marriage and subsequent blackmail; (II) unauthorized absence and suppression of information regarding a criminal case; and (III) failure to maintain a decent standard of conduct

Simultaneously, a criminal trial was pending on identical allegations under Sections 376, 377, 494, 495, 315, 316, 506, 507, and 419 of the IPC

The petitioner did not attend the departmental inquiry, citing "major depressive disorder," but the inquiry proceeded ex-parte

On 23/12/2014, the President of India awarded the penalty of "Dismissal from Service"

During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial

The Court applied the principle that while departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct, if the charges, evidence, and witnesses are identical, a judicial acquittal makes the sustenance of departmental findings "unjust, unfair, and oppressive," as established in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446

reaffirmed in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175

and Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar (2025) SCC OnLine SC 890

Regarding natural justice, the Court relied on Sheshrao Daulatrao Raut v. State of Maharashtra (1989) SCC Online Bom 103, which defines an "inquiry" as the search for truth requiring a fair consideration of evidence and a reasonable opportunity to be heard

Regarding Article-I (sexual exploitation), the Court found that the charges in the departmental inquiry were identical to the criminal trial where the petitioner was acquitted after a full trial involving all crucial witnesses

Following the G.M. Tank precedent, the Court held that the disciplinary finding on Article-I could not stand as it would be oppressive to ignore the judicial pronouncement

Regarding Articles-II and III (misconduct/absence), the Court observed that the petitioner’s father and wife had repeatedly informed the department of his "major depressive disorder" and psychiatric treatment

The Court determined that the petitioner's absence was not "willful" but due to a genuine medical ailment, and by proceeding ex-parte despite these intimations, the respondents violated the principles of natural justice, depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend himself

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he admitted being medically unfit to work during the period

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within three months but were granted liberty to conduct a de novo inquiry specifically regarding Charge Articles II and III if they so desire