Departmental punishment is unsustainable when based on bias and identical facts resulting in a criminal acquittal.

The applicant, a Senior Technical Assistant (STA) at NRFMTTI, Hisar, was served a charge memorandum on 12.04.2013 following a complaint against Respondent No. 5.

Both departmental proceedings and a criminal case (FIR No. 304/2013) were initiated against the applicant based on handwriting expert reports alleging he authored the complaint.

The Inquiry Officer proved the charges, leading to a punishment order dated 13.02.2015, which reduced the applicant’s basic pay for over three years.

His appeal and revision petitions were subsequently rejected in 2015 and 2016.

Meanwhile, on 07.07.2017, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, acquitted the applicant, finding that the false complaint was actually written by one Kapil Sharma.

Despite this, the respondents rejected the applicant's representation for service benefits on 11.09.2017, citing DoPT O.M. dated 21.07.2016, which states that acquittal on "benefit of doubt" does not automatically wipe out departmental penalties.

1. Whether the departmental proceedings were vitiated by bias because the complainant (Respondent No. 5) participated in the initiation of the disciplinary action.

2. Whether the findings of the departmental inquiry can be sustained when a criminal court, dealing with identical facts and evidence, acquitted the applicant and identified another culprit.

3. Whether the reliance on a private, unauthorized handwriting expert's report, while ignoring conflicting reports, rendered the inquiry perverse.

The court applied the doctrine of "Nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should be a judge in their own cause), citing A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, and Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, which establish that proceedings are void if conducted by a biased authority.

It further relied on Sushil Kumar v. Food Corporation of India, which provides that where departmental and criminal proceedings are founded on the same facts and witnesses, an acquittal should lead to setting aside the departmental penalty.

The court also scrutinized the application of DoPT O.M. dated 21.07.2016 regarding the distinction between "honourable acquittal" and "benefit of doubt".

The Tribunal reasoned that the disciplinary proceedings were structurally flawed from the outset because Respondent No. 5, the primary target of the complaint and the initiator of the FIR, acted as the Disciplinary Authority for the charge memorandum, violating principles of natural justice regarding bias.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the inquiry perverse as it selectively relied on one private handwriting expert’s report while ignoring three other reports that favored the applicant.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the criminal court’s findings did not merely grant "benefit of doubt" but positively identified a third party (Kapil Sharma) as the author of the complaint.

Since the departmental charges were identical to the criminal charges, the acquittal of the applicant and the identification of the real culprit rendered the basis of the departmental punishment non-existent.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing the charge memorandum (12.04.2013), the inquiry report, the punishment order (13.02.2015), and the subsequent appellate, revisional, and rejection orders. The respondents were directed to grant the applicant all consequential service benefits, including restoration of pay and release of arrears, within six weeks, though the prayer for interest was denied.