The High Court · 2025

WP No. 15065 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana pending the disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SPCL ADV FOR KU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAMESH CHILLA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAT'L AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA. YARA IIIRIT APPEAL No.377 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (P,zr the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Su-;og Paul) Sri L.Pral>hakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ramesl Chilla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent, hnally heard.

3. This intre Court appeal assails the ordel of the learned Single Judge pa.ssed in W.P.No.15065 of 2021, da1:.ed 3O.t2.2O24, whereby the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment of dismissal imposed on respondent No.l (writ petitioner No.1) on

07.O1.2O21, 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/emplo5,e:r assailed the findings of the learned Single Judge by contr:nding that the hndings are running from paragraph No.lO to 13. If the sai \ paragraphs are read carefully, it will be clear that c'nly one frnding 2 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 Gt{atatl and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthanz 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 gtrve 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.Ol.2O2l needs to be set aside' Thus, I , ' (2006) 5 scc 446 'z 2023 SCC OnLine SC 16l8 3 the facts of thr' case \,vere not tested on the anvit of the principles laid down in bc,th the judgments of the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned ordcr and submits that in paragraph l0 therein, the learned Single ,Iudge, 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 ald no other point is pressed.

7. We have lteard the learned counsel for the parties at length ard perused th,. record.

8. The finding of the learned Single Judge on which heavy reliance is plar:ec1 by the learned counsel for t_!re respondents reads thus: "...This Court also hnds that for the veq, same set of facts, the r:riminal case has been filed and afler contested trial, the trial Court held that the charges again:;t petitioner No.l have not been proved and petitioner Nc,.l has been honorably rrcquitted." 9 . A plain re ading of the aforesaid paragraptr makes it clear that the only firding given by the learned Single .tudge is that the facts of the criminal case and the departmenta.l enquiry were 4 sarne. 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 slcy 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: '3O. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the hnding 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 disciplinar5r authori[r 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 IG.M. Tank v. State of Gujara\ (2006) 5 SCC 446:2006 SCC (L&S) 11211 '"

10. As per the principles laid down in the aJoresaid judgments, the Court was required to examine whether the charges are not only similar but identical, in addition, the erridence, witnesses and circumstalces are sarne 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 hnding in paragraph 12 as under: q, ,;=*i;;;r***r** 5 "12. In view thereof and in view of the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, the order of <lismissal from service dt.O7 .O7 .2021 against petitioner No. I is :;et aside and petitionersr are entitled for consequential benefits;., 1 1. We find substance in the argument of th€. learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single .ludge has not independently r:xamined whether the charges aro not only similar but identical ald the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were also same. In the absence thereof, the impugrtr:d order setting aside the discigrlinary proceedings cannot be cotLntenanced. The impact of acquittal needs to be examined on the zurvil of principles { 0 laid down in both the cases and the Court is obllged to examine the nature of the charges in disciplinary enquiry ald criminal case and whether tlre circumstances, witnesses and evidence is the sarne. In the :rbsence thereof, the punishment c,rder cannot be interfered with. Since in the impugned order thc said analysis is missing, we are unable to give our stamp of approval to the said order. I I

12. Resultantl y, the impugned order passed try the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15065 of 2021, d.ated,3Cr.12.2024, is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original number. , I 6 Since respondent No.1 was dismissed from service, liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to pray for an early hearing of the writ petition by hling appropriate application before the learned Single Judge.

13. The writ appeal 1S accordingly disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.M.MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SPCL A One CC Two CD to SRI RAMESH CHILLA, Advocate [OPUC] Copies FOR KU [OPUC] To 1 2 3 PSK. LS t-$, HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 JUDGMENT WA.No.377 of 2025 6 'L,.' 2I PPn ?1]25 \ 3) Os F,Al C i,+i'.7' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS &1 4\ar I i i