Kakatiya University vs Mohd Mustafa Died Per Lrs
2025 Latest Caselaw 4672 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4672 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Kakatiya University vs Mohd Mustafa Died Per Lrs on 9 April, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

                                   AND

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                    WRIT APPEAL No.377 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra Court appeal assails the order of the learned

Single Judge passed in W.P.No.15065 of 2021, dated 30.12.2024,

whereby the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment

of dismissal imposed on respondent No.1 (writ petitioner No.1) on

07.01.2021 for the reason that on similar facts, respondent No.1

was subjected to criminal case and he was honourably acquitted

from the said case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/employer assailed the

findings of the learned Single Judge by contending that the

findings are running from paragraph No.10 to 13. If the said

paragraphs are read carefully, it will be clear that only one finding

was given in paragraph No.10 that the criminal case was pending

on the very same facts on which the departmental enquiry was

conducted. Thereafter, the principles of law laid down by the

Supreme Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat 1 and Ram Lal v.

State of Rajasthan 2 were considered and relevant paragraphs

were reproduced. By taking this Court to the relevant paragraphs

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M.Tank (supra), the

sheet anchor of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant

is that merely because a delinquent employee is acquitted in a

criminal case, it will not ipso facto give him a right of

reinstatement or setting aside of punishment order imposed on

him pursuant to the departmental enquiry. The Court needs to

examine whether the charges were not just similar but identical

and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.

There is no iota of discussion by the learned Single Judge on this

aspect and after reproducing the judgments of the Supreme Court,

the learned Single Judge directly reached to the conclusion that

the dismissal order dated 07.01.2021 needs to be set aside. Thus,

(2006) 5 SCC 446

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1618

the facts of the case were not tested on the anvil of the principles

laid down in both the judgments of the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the

impugned order and submits that in paragraph 10 therein, the

learned Single Judge, indeed, has given a finding that the criminal

case and departmental enquiry were founded upon the same facts.

6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent

indicated above and no other point is pressed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length

and perused the record.

8. The finding of the learned Single Judge on which heavy

reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents

reads thus:

"...This Court also finds that for the very same set of facts, the criminal case has been filed and after contested trial, the trial Court held that the charges against petitioner No.1 have not been proved and petitioner No.1 has been honorably acquitted."

9. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear

that the only finding given by the learned Single Judge is that the

facts of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry were

same. If the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Supreme

Court in G.M.Tank (supra) and Ram Lal (supra) are examined, it

will be clear like cloudless sky that the factum of identical facts is

not the only litmus test on the strength of which impact of

acquittal on the disciplinary proceeding can be examined. After

considering the judgment in G.M.Tank (supra), the Apex Court in

Ram Lal (supra), opined as under:

"30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] ."

10. As per the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments,

the Court was required to examine whether the charges are not

only similar but identical, in addition, the evidence, witnesses and

circumstances are same or not are to be examined as well. The

learned Single Judge after reproducing the relevant paragraphs of

the judgments of the Supreme Court in paragraph 11, recorded its

finding in paragraph 12 as under:

"12. In view thereof and in view of the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, the order of dismissal from service dt.07.01.2021 against petitioner No.1 is set aside and petitioners are entitled for consequential benefits."

11. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel

for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not

independently examined whether the charges are not only similar

but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were

also same. In the absence thereof, the impugned order setting

aside the disciplinary proceedings cannot be countenanced. The

impact of acquittal needs to be examined on the anvil of principles

laid down in both the cases and the Court is obliged to examine

the nature of the charges in disciplinary enquiry and criminal case

and whether the circumstances, witnesses and evidence is the

same. In the absence thereof, the punishment order cannot be

interfered with. Since in the impugned order the said analysis is