Departmental action after criminal acquittal must still rest on fair procedure, bona fide evidence, and proof of misconduct on probabilities.

Acquittal in a criminal case does not by itself bar departmental action because the two proceedings apply different standards of proof. A later disciplinary proceeding, however, must still rest on fair procedure, bona fide initiation, and relevant evidence capable of proving misconduct on a preponderance of probability. Where the department had earlier accepted the employee's explanation, the criminal court found no proof of misappropriation or conspiracy, and the inquiry was marked by denial of defence assistance, refusal to examine a defence witness, bias, and evidence unsupported by record, the disciplinary finding is vulnerable as perverse and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a departmental proceeding could be sustained after the respondent's exoneration in the customs proceedings and acquittal in the criminal case. (ii) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias, denial of fair opportunity, and a finding unsupported by evidence.

Issue (i): Whether a departmental proceeding could be sustained after the respondent's exoneration in the customs proceedings and acquittal in the criminal case.

Analysis: A departmental proceeding is not barred merely because a criminal case has ended in acquittal, and the two forums apply different standards of proof. However, where the department itself had earlier accepted the respondent's explanation and the criminal court recorded a positive finding that the prosecution had not proved misappropriation or conspiracy, a later disciplinary action must still be founded on bona fide, fair, and relevant material. The disciplinary authority could not proceed on mere suspicion or ipse dixit, especially when the core accusation of smuggling involvement had not been supported by independent evidence.

Conclusion: The departmental proceeding was not sustainable on the facts and evidence of this case.

Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias, denial of fair opportunity, and a finding unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The inquiry suffered from serious procedural unfairness. The respondent was denied effective defence assistance, his requested defence witness was not examined, and the Inquiry Officer improperly assumed the role of the Presenting Officer. The only supporting witness for the respondent was not discredited, and his evidence was inconsistent with the departmental case. The findings were therefore characterised by bias and were unsupported by evidence, rendering the inquiry report and the disciplinary action perverse.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and the finding of misconduct could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the respondent's reinstatement with consequential benefits stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Though acquittal in a criminal case does not by itself bar departmental action, such action must rest on fair procedure, bona fide initiation, and evidence capable of proving misconduct on a preponderance of probability; a biased or unsupported inquiry is a nullity.

---