Criminal acquittal does not automatically invalidate departmental findings proved on a preponderance of probabilities.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer appointed on 13 January 1999, was transferred to the Krishna Water Supply Project Division in 2005.

A criminal case and parallel departmental proceedings were initiated against him in connection with alleged irregularities in a dam project.

Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in C.C. No. 8 of 2011 on 27 April 2016, the departmental proceedings continued.

An earlier dismissal order dated 27 May 2019 was set aside for being non-speaking, following which the Disciplinary Authority passed a fresh order dated 8 February 2022 imposing compulsory retirement.

The Reviewing Authority confirmed the punishment on 25 April 2023.

The departmental charges concerned the petitioner’s alleged failure to record actual measurements in the Measurement Book, including false or fabricated entries, resulting in excess payment to the contractor and an alleged loss of approximately Rs.1,20,80,231 to the public exchequer.

Whether the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal prosecution, arising from substantially similar allegations, automatically required termination of the departmental proceedings and exoneration from the disciplinary charges?

Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority that the petitioner made false entries in the Measurement Book were unsupported by evidence or otherwise perverse?

Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was liable to be interfered with in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied the distinction between criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings: criminal charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary charges may be established on the preponderance of probabilities; consequently, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically result in exoneration in departmental proceedings.

The Court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, holding that judicial review examines the decision-making process, compliance with natural justice and the existence of supporting evidence, rather than functioning as an appellate review of factual findings or punishment.

It also relied on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, reiterating that interference is justified only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, contrary to natural justice or such that no reasonable person could have reached them.

The Court further held that the penalty cannot ordinarily be substituted unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were founded on the allegation that the petitioner, as the responsible Assistant Engineer, had recorded false measurements in the Measurement Book.

The fact that he did not authorise or make the final payment to the contractor did not absolve him, because the recorded measurements formed the basis for payment and the alleged false entries themselves constituted serious misconduct.

The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had relied on documentary material and the evidence of the petitioner’s superior officer to conclude that the false entry was proved.

The petitioner’s acquittal was not determinative because the criminal court had applied the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the departmental authority was required only to assess whether the charge was more probably true.

The Court also held that the petitioner’s alternative explanations regarding the number of gates measured and the exoneration of other officers could, at most, support another possible view; they did not establish that the disciplinary findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Court declined to reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own view on the appropriate penalty.

The writ petition challenging G.O. (3D) No. 4 dated 8 February 2022 and G.O. (D) No. 86 dated 25 April 2023 was dismissed.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed, with no order as to costs.