[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant vs The Charity Commissioner And Anr on 23 January, 2026
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:3573-DB WP-177-2025.DOC
Rekha Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION 177 OF 2025
Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant
Ex-Superintendent in the office of
Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur,
Age - 62 years,
R/o. Tapasaya, 504, 5th Floor,
Bhawani Shankar Road, ...Petitioner
Dadar (W), Mumbai 28.
Versus
1. The Charity Commissioner
M. S. Mumbai. Having Office at
Charity Commissionerate Bhawan,
3rd floor, 83, Dr. Anie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai 18.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary and
R.L.A. and the Appellate Authority
Law and Judiciary Department,
Having office of Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents
Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai with Ms. Mohini A. Rehpade, Digvijay S.
Kachare, A. Almeida, Vijay Singh, Daksha Punghera, Karan
Gajra, Sanchita Sontakke i/by Desai Legal LLP, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. GP a/w Shri S. P. Kamble, AGP, for the
Respondent-State.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 16th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
REKHA
PRAKASH
PATIL Page 1 of 28
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2026.01.23
18:11:27 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:26:00 :::
WP-177-2025.DOC
JUDGMENT :
(Per SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing and disposal.
2. This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment and
Order dated 2nd August, 2024, passed by the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal ("MAT"), dismissing the Original
Application No. 782 of 2018, instituted by the Petitioner, thereby
upholding the order of dismissal from service dated 3rd May, 2017,
passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the Charity Commissioner.
3. The facts and circumstance of the case, giving rise to the
filing of the present Writ Petition, are briefly narrated herein-
below:-
(a) The Petitioner herein, who had initially joined
service on 1st December, 1982, as a 'Peon', was
subsequently promoted to various higher posts. The
Petitioner eventually held the post of 'Superintendent',
which was the post held by him till dismissal from
service.
WP-177-2025.DOC
(b) While serving as 'Inspector' in the Public Trust
Registration Office, under the Respondent No.1, the
Petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting
illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakhs, following which,
the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a
criminal case, leading to the filing of ACB Special Case
No. 35 of 2014. On 28 th April, 2015, charge was
framed against the Petitioner/original Applicant in
connection with ACB Special Case No. 35 of 2014,
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act').
(c) During the Pendency of criminal proceeding
before the learned Special Judge, a Departmental
Enquiry ('DE') was initiated against the Petitioner on
charges which were of similar nature. However, before
conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry, by the
Judgment and Order dated 21 st November, 2015, the
Petitioner was acquitted by the learned Special Judge
by giving him the benefit of doubt. Notwithstanding
the same, the Departmental Enquiry proceeded and
WP-177-2025.DOC
the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge brought
against the Petitioner stood established.
(d) Meanwhile, the Petitioner was placed under
suspension by order dated 30th April, 2012, but after
his acquittal in the Criminal Case, he was reinstated in
service on 23rd February, 2016. On 20th May, 2016, the
Petitioner was also promoted to the post of
'Superintendent' during the time when the
Departmental Enquiry was pending against him.
(e) On 7th April, 2017, a Show Cause Notice was
issued to the Petitioner, forwarding copy of the
Enquiry Report to submit his say. After considering the
reply submitted by him, the Disciplinary Authority
issued order dated 3rd May, 2017, dismissing the
Petitioner from service. The Departmental Appeal
preferred by him before the Appellate Authority also
came to be dismissed by order dated 25th May, 2018.
(f) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner had instituted
Original Application No. 782 of 2018 before the
WP-177-2025.DOC
learned MAT, which was also dismissed on 2 nd August,
2024. Hence, this Petition.
(g) We are informed that the Petitioner has, in the
meantime, attained the age of superannuation from
service.
4. The submissions of Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, reduced to its essence, are primarily two fold: (i) Firstly,
the charge brought against the Petitioner in the criminal case as
well as departmental proceeding, are one and the same and the
witnesses examined by the prosecution/department in both the
proceedings are also substantially the same. Therefore, after the
acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal case, the departmental
proceeding ought to have been closed. To that effect, the order of
dismissal from service is bad in law, (ii) Secondly, the prayer made
by the petitioner for allowing him to be represented by a lawyer
was illegally declined by the Enquiry Officer, thereby, depriving
him of the right to effectively defend his interest. As such, the
impugned order of dismissal from service is bad on account of
violation of procedural safeguards and the principle of natural
justice.
WP-177-2025.DOC
5. Assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned
MAT, the learned Counsel Mr. Desai has argued that after the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Ors. 1, law is well settled
that, when a criminal case and departmental proceeding are based
on identical charges and are sought to be proved by examining the
same witnesses, on acquittal in the criminal trial, the departmental
proceeding is required to be dropped. The learned Counsel
submits that similar view has been expressed by the Supreme
Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.2 as well.
6. By placing reliance on another decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3, the
learned Counsel Mr. Desai has argued that the law laid down in the
case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and G.M. Tank (supra) have
been quoted with approval in a subsequent decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra) whereby, the effect
of acquittal in a criminal proceeding has been considered by the
Supreme Court. He submits that in Ram Lal (supra), the Hon'ble
1 (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679
2 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446
3 (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 175
WP-177-2025.DOC
Supreme Court has held that, where the charges in the
departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical and the
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances are also the same, the
Court can interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority if findings contrary to those in the criminal case are
recorded; in such a case, the order is liable to be held to be unjust,
unfair and oppressive.
7. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has made
elaborate arguments to convince this Court that this is a case
where charges framed against the Petitioner in the Criminal
Proceeding as well as the Departmental Enquiry was one and the
same and the witnesses examined to prove the charge were also
the same. As such, in view of the law laid down in the case of
Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), G.M. Tank (supra) as well as Ram
Lal (supra), the continuance of the Departmental Proceeding
leading to the issuance of order of penalty was wholly
impermissible in the eyes of law.
8. By referring to a decision rendered in the case of Maharana
Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors.4, learned Counsel for the
4 2025 SCC Online SC 890
WP-177-2025.DOC
Petitioner has further submitted that the test laid down in para 25
of the said decision, if applied to the facts of this case, would lead
to the irresistible conclusion that the order of penalty is
unsustainable in law.
9. Mr. Walimbe, learned Additional G. P., on the other hand,
has submitted that the mere fact that the Petitioner was acquitted
in a Criminal Case would not automatically lead to his discharge in
Departmental Proceeding, if the facts and circumstances of the
case does not justify the same.
10. The Respondent-State has opposed the Writ Petition by, inter
alia, contending that although there was similarity of charges
brought against the Writ Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding as
well as in the Departmental Proceeding, yet, there was some
differences between the two. Moreover, the Witnesses examined
so as to establish the charge in the Departmental Proceeding are
also not the same, although, there were some common witnesses.
Contending that, the scope of Criminal Proceeding under Section 7
of the PC Act is different from the Departmental Proceeding held to
establish misconduct, it has been contended that once misconduct
WP-177-2025.DOC
on the part of the delinquent official is established in Departmental
Proceeding, imposing penalty would be permissible under the law.
11. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar
and have also gone through the materials available on record.
Since elaborate arguments have been advanced by the Petitioner's
Counsel to contend that after the acquittal of his client in the
Criminal Proceeding, the Departmental Proceeding was not
maintainable, we deem it necessary to make a brief survey of
judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
above subject.
12. The decision in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) is
one of the early decisions of the Apex Court dealing with the issue
of maintainability of parallel criminal and disciplinary proceedings
against the same delinquent where the charges were identical. In
Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court has held that
when the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, the
Departmental Proceeding and the Criminal Case, are the same,
without there being any iota of difference, the distinction between
the Departmental Proceeding and the Criminal Case on the basis of
approach and burden of proof would not be applicable. In that
WP-177-2025.DOC
case, the Criminal Case as well as the Departmental Proceedings
were based on identical set of facts, i.e., the raid conducted at the
Appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles
therefrom. The Police Officer and the Panch witnesses, who had
raided the house of the appellant were the only witnesses
examined by the Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceeding
and by relying upon their statements, the Enquiry Officer came to
the conclusion that the charge was established against the
Appellant. The said witnesses were also examined in the Criminal
Case and on consideration of the entire evidence, the Court came
to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not established
and accordingly, acquitted the Appellant. It is in these
circumstances, the Supreme Court has held in Capt. M. Paul
Anthony (supra) that in view of the judicial pronouncement in the
Criminal Proceeding, it would be unjust and unfair and rather,
oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the Departmental
Proceeding to stand. It deserves mention herein that in that case
the Departmental Proceeding was conducted ex-parte against the
delinquent.
WP-177-2025.DOC
13. In the case of G.M. Tank (supra), the Appellant was
honourably acquitted by a Competent Court but following the
report of the Enquiry Officer in a Departmental Proceeding, he was
dismissed from service. The Departmental Proceeding was
conducted on the same set of facts, evidence and witnesses. It was
in such a situation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
with the acquittal of the Appellant in the criminal trial, the
Departmental Enquiry on the same set of facts was not
maintainable.
14. However, it will be significant to note herein that in a later
decision in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited, represented by Managing Director (Administration & HR)
vs. C. Nagaraju and Anr.5, the Supreme Court had interfered with
the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of dismissal
on the basis of acquittal by the Criminal Court by holding that
acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from
exercising the power to conduct departmental proceeding in
accordance with the rules and regulations. It has been held that
the two proceedings, Criminal and Departmental, are entirely
5 (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 367
WP-177-2025.DOC
different, they operate in different fields and have different
objectives.
15. Explaining the law laid down in the case of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony (supra) and G. M. Tank (Supra), the Supreme Court has
further held in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
(supra) that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), simultaneous
continuance of Departmental Proceeding and Criminal case on the
same set of facts was the point of consideration by the Court
wherein, an opinion was expressed that Departmental Proceeding
and Criminal Case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar.
However, it is desirable to stay the Departmental Enquiry till
conclusion of the Criminal Case, if the Departmental Proceeding
and Criminal Case are based on identical and similar set of facts
and the charge in the Criminal Case against the delinquent
employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated
questions of law and fact.
16. In para 13 of the decision in a case of Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited (supra), the following
observations have been made, which are reproduced herein-below:
WP-177-2025.DOC
"13. Having considered the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant and the Respondent
No. 1, we are of the view that interference with
the order of dismissal by the High Court was
unwarranted. It is settled law that the acquittal
by a criminal court does not preclude a
departmental inquiry against the delinquent
officer. The disciplinary authority is not bound
by the judgment of the criminal court if the
evidence that is produced in the departmental
inquiry is different from that produced during
the criminal trial. The object of a departmental
inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is
guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for
the purpose of determining whether he should
be continued in service. The standard of proof in
a departmental inquiry is not strictly based on
the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal
which is based on the evidence before the
inquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings,
which is different from the evidence available to
the criminal court, is justified and needed no
interference by the High Court."
17. By interpreting the law laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony
(supra), the Supreme Court has further observed in the case of
Union of India & Ors. vs. Sitaram Mishra & Anr. 6 that the mere fact
that the employee was acquitted in the course of the criminal trial
cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of
6 (2019) 20 SCC 588
WP-177-2025.DOC
misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the
disciplinary proceedings.
18. In the case of G. M. Tank (Supra), the evidence before the
Criminal Court and the Departmental Proceeding, being exactly
the same, the Supreme Court has held that acquittal of the
employee by a Criminal Court has to be given due weight by the
Disciplinary Authority, since the evidence in both, the Criminal
Trial and a Departmental Enquiry, is the same. Therefore, the order
of dismissal of the Appellant after his acquittal in the Criminal
Proceeding was set aside.
19. In the case of Ram Lal (supra), it was held that although
mere acquittal in Criminal Proceeding would not confer any right
to the employee to claim benefit, including reinstatement, yet,
where the charge in Departmental Proceeding and Criminal Court
are identical, the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are also
the same and where the Court, in exercise of judicial review, finds
that acquittal in Criminal Proceeding was done after full
consideration of prosecution evidence, wherein the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove charge, in such a case, the Court can
interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, where the
WP-177-2025.DOC
findings of the Disciplinary Authority are also found to be unjust,
unfair and oppressive.
20. By emphasizing on the expressions such as, "benefit of
doubt" and "honourably acquitted", the Supreme Court has further
observed in Ram Lal (supra) that these expressions cannot be
understood as magic incantations. The Court, in exercise of its
power of judicial review, is obliged to examine the substance of the
judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
21. In another recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
the case of Maharana Pratap Singh (supra), similar observations
have been made to the effect that while an acquittal in a Criminal
Case would not automatically entitle the accused to have an order
of setting aside the order of dismissal from public service following
the disciplinary proceedings, yet, when the charges, evidence,
witnesses as well as the circumstances in both, the Departmental
Enquiry and Criminal Proceeding are identical or substantially
similar, it would assume a different context. In such cases,
upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceeding would be
unjust, unfair and oppressive.
WP-177-2025.DOC
22. From a careful survey of aforementioned decisions of the
Supreme Court what follows is that, while reinstatement in service
would not be automatic upon acquittal of an employee in a
criminal case, yet, the situation would be entirely different, if the
charge in the Criminal Proceeding as well as Departmental
Proceeding are identical and the witnesses, evidence and
circumstances of both proceedings are also to similar effect. It is in
such cases, when the prosecution fails to establish the charge
against the accused/ delinquent in the Criminal trial that the same
would have a bearing on the Departmental Enquiry.
23. From the judicial pronouncements referred to above, it is
also apparent that the correct course of action to be adopted in a
particular case would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, let us
now examine as to whether, the charges framed in the Criminal
Proceeding as well as Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner,
the witnesses, evidence and circumstances were identical and if so,
whether the Petitioner was honourably acquitted in the Criminal
Proceeding.
WP-177-2025.DOC
24. In the Criminal Proceeding, the following charges were
framed against the Petitioner.
POINTS
1. Whether prosecution proves that on 26/03/2012
at the office of Charity Commissioner at Worli, Mumbai,
demanded and attempted to obtain a sum of Rs.6,00,00/-
for himself from the complainant as an illegal gratification
other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for
showing favour to the complainant for his appointment
and appointment of Smt. Nanda Raut as trustees of
Martand Devasthan?
2. Whether prosecution proves that as a part of the
said transaction accused demanded an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- with the informant and out of that have
agreed to accept first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
aforesaid reason?
3. Whether prosecution proves that on or about
18/04/2012 at 3:45 pm accused demanded and accepted
Rs.2,00,000/- as an illegal gratification other than legal
remuneration as a motive or reward for the reasons stated
earlier?
4. Whether prosecution proves that on 18/04/2012 at
about 3:45 pm in the course of same transaction accused
committed criminal misconduct by accepting
Rs.2,00,000/- as aforesaid?
5. What order?
FINDINGS
1. In the negative.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
WP-177-2025.DOC
4. In the negative.
5. As per final order."
25. The following seven (7) witnesses were examined by the
prosecution during the trial.
"PW-1 Surendra Kadam (Informant)
PW-2 Kiran Wagal (Panch)
PW-3 Nilesh Shrirang Sawant (Technician)
PW-4 Nitin Pawar ( Another Technician)
PW-5 Ravindra Avhad (Another Panch)
PW-6 Mrs. Shobha Tendulkar (colleague)
PW-7 Lokesh Kanse (Investigating Officer)"
On conclusion of trial, the Petitioner was acquitted by giving
him the benefit of doubt.
26. Insofar as the Departmental Proceeding is concerned, the
following two charges were brought against him.
^ tksMirz&,d
Jh‐ प्रभाकर काशि राम सावं त] शि रीक्षक] सावजशि क न्यास ोंदणी
कायालय बृ हन्मुं बई शिवभाग] मुं बई यांचेशिवरू/n तयार करण्यात
आले ल्या दोषारोपातील बाबींचे शिववरणपत्र‐
बाब- एक
तु म्ही Jh‐ प्रभाकर काशि राम सावं त, शि रीक्षक, सावजशि क न्यास
ोंदणी कायालय, बृ हन्मुं बई शिवभाग, मुं बई कायालयात कायरत
असतां ा शिद.१८/०४/२०१२ रोजी कायालयी वे ळेत तक् रारदार र् ी
सु रेन्द्र के व कदम यांचेकडू रु.२,००,०००/- (अक्षरी रुपये दो
लाख) ची लाच शि3वकारतां ा अॅ5न्टी करप् ब्यूरो, मुं बई यांचेकडू
WP-177-2025.DOC
लाचे च्या रकमे सह पकडण्यात आले असल्या े तु म्ही ासकीय
कमचा-यां ा ोभणारे असे कृत्य केले आहे .
कशिरता तु म्ही महाराष्ट् र ागरी से वा (वतणूक) शि यम १९७९ चे
शि यम ३(१) (३) चे उल्लं घ केल्या े महाराष्ट् र ागरी से वा (शि 3त
व अपील) शि यम १९७९ अन्वये शिवभागीय चौक ीसाठी पात्र ठरत
आहात.
Lkgh@&
धमादाय आयु क्त,
महाराष्ट् र राज्य, मुं बई.
Translation of Charge-1 in English reads as follows:
Addendum - One
Statement of the fact of the charge against Shri
Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant, Inspector, Public Trust
Registration Office, Brihanmumbai Division, Mumbai.
Item One
You, Shri. Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant,
Inspector, Public Trust Registration Office,
Brihanmumbai Division, Mumbai Office, were caught
by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Mumbai while
accepting a bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
in words) from the complainant Shri Surendra Keshav
Kadam during office hours on 18/04/2012, along
with the bribe amount, and you have committed an
act unbecoming of a Government employee.
You are liable to a departmental inquiry under
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1979, for violating Rule 3(1)(3) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.
Sd/-
Charity Commissioner,
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
जोडपत्र - दोन
र् ी प्रभाकर काशि राम सावं त, शि रीक्षक, सावजशि क न्यास
WP-177-2025.DOC
ोंदणी कायालय, बृ हन्मुं बई शिवभाग, मुं बई यांचेशिवरूध्द तयार
करण्यात आले ल्या दोषारोपातील बाबीच्या पृ ष्ठयर्थ असले ल्या
गै रशि 3तीच्या शिकंवा गै रवतणु कीच्या आरोपांचे शिववरणपत्र.
बाब एक
तु म्ही र् ी प्रभाकरं काशि राम सावं त, शि रीक्षक, सावजशि क
न्यास ोंदणी कायालय, बृ हन्मुं बई शिवभाग, मुं बई ये र्थे कायरत
असतां ा,तक् रारदार र् ी सु रेन्द्र के व कदम यां च्याकडे त्यांची
मातं ड दे व3र्था , जे जुरी शिवश्व3तपदी शि वडीचे ऑडर शिमळवू
दे ण्याची जबाबदारी व हमी दे ऊ त्यांचेकडू कायदे ीर
पशिर र् माखे रीज बे कायदे ीर मागा े लाचे ची मागणी करु रुपये
२,००,०००/- (अक्षरी रुपये दो लाख) इतकी रक्कम
कायालयातच तक् रारदार यांचेकडू लाच शि3वकारतां ा अॅ5न्टी
करप् ब्यु रो, मुं बई यांचेकडू शिद.१८/०४/२०१२ रोजी रं गेहार्थ
पकडले गे ल्यामु ळे तु म्ही ासकीय कमचा-यां ा ोभणारे
असे कृत्य केले आहे .
कशिरता तु म्ही र् ी प्रभाकर काशि राम सावं त, शि रीक्षक
महाराष्ट् र ागरी से वा (वतणूक) शि यम १९७९ चे शि यम ३ (१)
(३) चे उल्लं घ केल्या े महाराष्ट् र ागरी से वा (शि 3त व
अपील) शि यम १९७९ अन्वये शिवभागीय चौक ीसाठी
चौक ीसाठी पात्र ठरत आहात.
Lkgh@&
धमादाय आयु क्त,
महाराष्ट् र राज्य, मुं बई.
Translation of Charge-2 in English reads as follows:
Addendum - Two
Statement of allegations of misconduct in the
chargesheet prepared against Shri Prabhakar
Kashiram Sawant, Inspector, Public Trust Registration
Office, Brihanmumbai Division, Mumbai.
Item One
You, Shri. Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant,
Inspector, Public Trust Registration Office,
Brihanmumbai Division, Mumbai Office, have
committed an act unbecoming of a government
WP-177-2025.DOC
servant by demanding a bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs in words) from the complainant
Shri Surendra Keshav Kadam by giving him the
responsibility and guarantee to obtain an order for his
selection as a Trustee of Martand Devasthan, Jejuri,
without due diligence and by illegally accepting bribe
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh in words) from
the complainant in the office itself. You have
committed an act unbecoming of a Government
servant by being caught red-handed by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Mumbai on 18/04/2012.
You, Shri. Prabhakar Kashiram Sawant,
Inspector are hereby directed to take disciplinary
action against you under the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, for
violating Rule 3(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.
Sd/-
Charity Commissioner,
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
27. As many as three witnesses were examined during the
departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer found that both the
charges brought against the Petitioner stood established.
28. What would be significant to note herein is that, it is not the
case of the Petitioner that the Departmental Proceeding was dehors
the rule or that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were
perverse. The Petitioner has also not assailed the Enquiry Report
on the ground that the findings recorded therein were
WP-177-2025.DOC
unsustainable in the eyes of law on any other count. If that be so,
it cannot be denied that the charge of misconduct brought against
the Petitioner has been duly proved.
29. It is no doubt correct that the Petitioner was not allowed to
avail the services of a lawyer during the Enquiry Proceeding.
However, it appears that no such grievance was raised by the
Petitioner before the Competent Forum during the currency of the
Enquiry Proceeding. The learned MAT, while taking note of such
grievance of the Petitioner, has declined relief to him on this
ground by observing that since the Presenting Officer was not a
lawyer, hence, denial of service of a lawyer to the Petitioner before
the Enquiry Officer would not, in any manner, vitiate the Enquiry
Report. We do not find any good ground to disagree with such
finding recorded by the MAT.
30. From a reading of the charges brought against the Petitioner
in the Departmental Proceeding as well as the Criminal
Proceeding, we are unable to agree with the submissions of
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the charges are the same,
although, there is substantial similarity of charges brought against
WP-177-2025.DOC
the Petitioner in both the Proceedings. It is no doubt correct that
both the proceedings involved charges, the genesis of which lies in
the same transaction. However, it must be borne in mind that the
approach and perspective of both the proceedings are entirely
different. In the Criminal Case, the endavour of the prosecution
would be to prove the charge of corruption brought against the
Petitioner/Accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in the
Departmental Proceeding, the object is to prove the charge of
misconduct on the part of the delinquent official, within the
meaning of Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1979. Therefore, in the Departmental
Proceeding, what would be of utmost significance is the fact as to
whether, the allegation of misconduct has been established in
accordance with law and not the fact that the delinquent has been
acquitted in the Criminal Case, although the factum of acquittal
may have a relevant bearing in the Departmental Proceeding,
depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
31. As has been noted herein-above, in the present case,
during the Departmental Proceeding, only three witnesses had
been examined. Although, two of them are common witnesses in
WP-177-2025.DOC
the Departmental Proceeding as well as the Criminal Proceeding,
yet, atleast one witness examined during the departmental
proceeding was not produced as a witness in the criminal trail.
Even if the witnesses turn out to be the same in both the
proceedings, even then, the projection made by these witnesses in
both the proceedings may differ in perspective. Therefore, even if
the same witnesses were examined in the Criminal Proceeding,
what effect the testimony of those witnesses would have in the
departmental proceeding is not open for speculation by the Court.
It would be incumbent upon the delinquent to plead and establish
that not only in form but in substance also evidence available
before the Criminal Case was identical to that before the Enquiry
Proceeding, which the Petitioner in this case has failed to
demonstrate before the Court. Suffice it to note herein that in the
present case, the witnesses examined in both the proceedings are
also not exactly the same. If that be so, can it be said that merely
because of his acquittal in the criminal case, the Petitioner was
automatically entitled to discharge in the Departmental
Proceeding. The answer to the above question, in the facts of this
case, in our considered opinion, has to be in the negative.
WP-177-2025.DOC
32. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which deserves
consideration. Unlike, in any of the decisions relied upon by the
Petitioner, in the present case, para 4.7 of the Departmental
Enquiry Rule Book, 4th Edition, 1991 (G.A.D.) permitted the
Departmental Authorities to continue with the Departmental
Enquiry even after acquittal in the Criminal Case. Para 4.7 is
reproduced herein-below :-
४.७. दोषमु क्तीनंतरची कारवाई -- (१) न्यायशि णय दोषमु क्तीबाबत
असे ल ते व्हा सक्षम प्राशिधकाऱ्यास न्यायशि णयाचे व काही पु रावा
असल्यास त्याचे काळजीपूवक अवलोक केल्या ं तर शिवभागीय
चौक ी चालू ठे वण्याची आवश्यकता आहे शिकंवा काय, याशिवषयी
शिवचार करता ये ईल. दोषमु क्ती समर्थ ीय आहे या शिवषयी सक्षम
प्राशिधकारी सहमत झाला तर त्यास फौजदारी न्यायालयाच्या
शि ष्कषा ी आपण सहमत आहोत, असे प्रमाशिणत करू चौक ी बं द
करता ये ईल.
(२) दोषमु क्ती समर्थ ीय होती या शिवषयी सक्षम प्राशिधकारी सहमत
झाला ाही तर त्यास आरोपीशिवरुद्ध शिवभागीय चौक ी चालू ठे वता
ये ईल बाशिण योग्य ती शि क्षा ठोठावता ये ईल. जर प्राशिधकाऱ्या े
ासकीय कमचाऱ्यास शि क्षा दे ण्याचा शि णये घे तला तर अ ा
प्रत्ये क प्रकरणात लोकशिहत लक्षात घे ऊ शिवशि ष्ट गै रवतणु कीबद्दल
ठोठावयाच्या शि क्षे चे 3वरूप व प्रमाण या शिवषयी शि णय घे णे ही
अ ा प्राशिधकाऱ्याची जबाबदारी असे ल.
(३) मोठी शि क्षा लादण्यासाठी न्यायालयातील प्रत्ये क दोषशिसद्धी
पु रे ी होईलच असे ाही, तसे च अपचारी मोठ्या शि क्षे स पात्
WP-177-2025.DOC
असे ल ते व्हा, दोषमु क्ती ही मोठया शि क्षे च्या आड ये ता कामा ये , या
गोष्टीची ोंद घे ण्यात यावी.
Translation of Para 4.7 of Departmental Enquiry Rule
Book, 4th Edition, 1991 (G.A.D)
4.7. Action after Acquittal -
(1) Where the judgment is one of acquittal, the competent
authority may, after carefully examining the judgment and,
if any, the evidence, consider whether it is necessary to
continue the departmental inquiry. If the competent
authority agrees that the acquittal is justified, the inquiry
may be closed by certifying that it agrees with the findings
of the criminal court.
(2) If the competent authority does not agree that the
acquittal was justified, it may continue with the
departmental inquiry against the accused and impose an
appropriate penalty. If the authority decides to impose a
penalty on the Government servant, in every such case, it
shall be the responsibility of such authority to decide,
keeping public interest in view, the nature and quantum of
the penalty to be imposed for the specific misconduct.
(3) It should be noted that every conviction by a court may
not necessarily be sufficient for imposing a major penalty,
and likewise, where the delinquent is liable for a major
penalty, an acquittal should not stand in the way of
imposing a major penalty.
WP-177-2025.DOC
33. It is the admitted position of fact that after his acquittal in
the Criminal Case, the Petitioner did not raise any objection as to
the continuance of the Departmental Proceeding but continued to
participate in the same without any objection. It was only after the
Disciplinary Authority has issued the order of penalty that the
Petitioner had taken the plea of non-maintainability of the
Departmental Proceeding. However, in view of para 4.7 of
Departmental Enquiry Rule Book, as referred to above, we are of
the view that the Department was entitled to continue with the
Disciplinary Proceeding against the Petitioner notwithstanding his
acquittal of the Criminal Case. Therefore, by not raising any
objection to the continuance of the Departmental Proceeding and
by participating in the said proceeding, the Petitioner has, in our
opinion, acquiesced to the continuance of the Departmental
Proceeding. He cannot, therefore, now turn around and make a
complain that the Departmental Proceeding ought to have been
closed upon his acquittal in the Criminal Case.
34. For the reasons stated herein-above, we are of the view that
there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the
impugned order of dismissal from service or the subsequent order
WP-177-2025.DOC
dated 25th May, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority and the
Judgment and Order dated 2 nd August, 2024 passed by the learned
MAT dismissing the Original Application No. 782 of 2018 preferred
by the Petitioner on the grounds and reasons mentioned therein.
35. The Writ Petition is, therefore, held to be without any merit.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order
as to costs.
( S. M. MODAK , J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
