Criminal acquittal for unproved demand does not undo an independently proved departmental charge.

The petitioner, a Superintendent of Service Tax, was charged with demanding and accepting ₹25,000 from a taxpayer in connection with altering an audit enquiry report. Following a departmental enquiry, the charge was held proved and the petitioner was removed from service under Rule 11(viii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Separately, the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case arising from the same incident, but the High Court later set aside the conviction and acquitted him because demand had not been proved; the recovery of the currency notes was not disputed.

He then challenged the Tribunal’s order, arguing, among other things, that the acquittal undermined the departmental finding and entitled him to financial benefits.

1. Whether the departmental finding of misconduct and the removal penalty could stand despite the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal proceedings arising from the same incident

2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision or the departmental penalty warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, including on the grounds of procedural unfairness, no evidence, or disproportionate punishment

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to financial benefits following his acquittal in the criminal case, notwithstanding the independent departmental enquiry

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters: interference is warranted where the penalty results from a violation of natural justice, the finding is based on no evidence, or the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct.

Departmental charges are determined on the preponderance of probabilities, and strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials do not govern those proceedings.

An acquittal in a criminal case does not, by itself, invalidate a penalty imposed after an independent departmental enquiry or confer an automatic right to financial benefits.

The Court distinguished Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175, on its facts; it also held Raj Narain v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 809, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446, and State Bank of India v. Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (2013) 11 SCC 67, inapplicable to the circumstances before it.

The Court found that the departmental enquiry was conducted independently of the criminal case, that witnesses and documents were considered, and that the petitioner had an opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses.

The criminal acquittal rested on the prosecution’s failure to prove demand to the criminal standard; the Court considered that the undisputed recovery of the money could be assessed in the departmental proceeding under the preponderance-of-probabilities standard.

The petitioner did not establish a breach of natural justice, absence of evidence, or disproportionality sufficient to warrant judicial interference.

The Court therefore rejected the contention that acquittal alone displaced the departmental finding or entitled the petitioner to financial benefits.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the penalty of removal from service undisturbed.