Kiran Raj

The Tripura High Court has set aside the dismissal of a government employee, ruling that his acquittal in a criminal case rendered the disciplinary action against him unsustainable. The court quashed the penalty of removal from service and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and pensionary benefits. The bench held that the departmental proceedings failed to establish his guilt based on the preponderance of probability and that his acquittal in the criminal case should be considered in determining his employment status.

The case concerned the petitioner’s termination from his position as a Peon in the office of the Director, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Development Institute, Government of India. He was accused of involvement in a financial embezzlement case, leading to a criminal trial and departmental proceedings. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial, but his appeal for reinstatement was dismissed by the single-judge bench of the High Court, prompting the present writ appeal.

The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the government department in 1984. On August 1, 2000, he was arrested in connection with an FIR alleging embezzlement of government funds through fraudulent withdrawals by a cashier in the same department. The police charged the petitioner and the cashier under Sections 468, 471, 420, and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension, and a departmental inquiry was initiated.

The disciplinary authority framed charges against him, including allegations that he was involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 6,87,072 from the office account, that Rs. 5,00,000 in cash and a cheque book were recovered from his residence, and that he had remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The inquiry officer found the charges proved, and the petitioner was removed from service on November 30, 2007. His appeal against the dismissal was rejected.

Meanwhile, the criminal trial, conducted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Agartala, resulted in the petitioner’s acquittal on December 20, 2018. The trial court noted that prosecution witnesses did not provide substantive evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged forgery and embezzlement. Following his acquittal, the petitioner sought reinstatement, the release of his pending salary and allowances from August 1, 2000, and all pensionary benefits. His writ petition was dismissed by a single-judge bench of the High Court on January 2, 2020, on the grounds of delay in approaching the court and the nature of the acquittal.

Hearing the appeal, the division bench examined the records of both the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial. The court observed that in the disciplinary proceedings, the prosecution primarily relied on circumstantial evidence. The inquiry officer concluded that “the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal offense towards embezzlement of government money is not beyond doubt.”

The bench noted that the primary evidence against the petitioner was the alleged recovery of Rs. 5,00,000 and a cheque book from his residence. The court recorded that “the departmental inquiry relied heavily on the correctness of the seizure list, which the petitioner had acknowledged as true. However, there was no independent corroboration of his involvement in the offense.”

In the criminal trial, the prosecution examined key witnesses, including the complainant and other departmental officials. The trial court, after assessing their testimonies, stated: “It is clearly seen that the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses. The complainant did not initially have any allegations against the accused, and there is no direct evidence linking him to the forgery or embezzlement.”

The High Court observed that while an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement, in cases where the charges and evidence are identical in both proceedings, a criminal acquittal may be relevant. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s ruling that “if the evidence, witnesses, and circumstances are identical in both proceedings, and the criminal court finds no material evidence to establish guilt, the departmental penalty may be reviewed.”

Further, the court found that the delay in the petitioner’s appeal was justified given that his acquittal occurred only in 2018. It recorded: “The delay in seeking relief does not appear to be an absolute bar when the petitioner was awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings.”

Based on its findings, the Tripura High Court quashed the dismissal order and issued the following directives:

• The petitioner’s removal from service, imposed by the disciplinary authority on November 30, 2007, is set aside.

• The respondents are directed to release all outstanding pay and allowances from August 1, 2000, when the petitioner was placed under suspension, until his scheduled retirement date.

• All pensionary benefits due to the petitioner must be released within three months from the date of the judgment.

The judgment noted: “Considering the evidence recorded in the departmental inquiry and the findings of the criminal court, the petitioner is entitled to relief in service law.”

The case now stands concluded with the High Court’s ruling in favor of the petitioner, ensuring his reinstatement and financial dues.

Case Title: Sri Satya Sarkar v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. No. 148 of 2022
Bench: Justice Arindam Lodh, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha

[Read/Download order]