Criminal acquittal and procedural irregularity in disciplinary action did not justify interference after superannuation.

A criminal acquittal does not, by itself, prevent departmental action, but it remains relevant where the same episode is under scrutiny and the proved lapse is only a procedural irregularity. On the facts described, no personal gain, pecuniary loss, or fraudulent intent was established, and the misconduct was not treated as a grave misappropriation. The employee's superannuation was also a material factor in the Court's discretionary refusal to interfere under Article 136, with the dismissal from service left undisturbed and the appeals rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal from service, imposed in departmental proceedings despite the respondent's acquittal in the criminal case, called for interference in view of the nature of the misconduct and the proportionality of punishment.

Analysis: The departmental and criminal proceedings arose out of the same overall episode, but the Court found that the respondent had not been shown to have derived any personal gain and that the proved lapse was essentially a procedural irregularity rather than a grave act of misappropriation. The criminal acquittal, though not conclusive by itself in disciplinary matters, was relevant in the factual setting because the High Court had recorded a clear finding that the misconduct was not wilful or fraudulent and that no pecuniary benefit or loss had been established against the respondent. In these circumstances, and particularly as the respondent had already reached superannuation, the Court declined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.

Conclusion: The dismissal from service was not disturbed, and the appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proved misconduct is confined to procedural irregularity, with no personal gain or loss to the institution established, and the employee has already superannuated, the Court may decline to interfere with the relief granted by the High Court even though criminal acquittal does not, by itself, bar departmental action.

---