Acquittal on merits bars sustained departmental penalty on identical facts, and the punishment orders were quashed.

A departmental penalty based on the same facts and identical charges could not be sustained where the petitioner had already been acquitted on merits by the criminal court. The High Court applied the principle that a substantive criminal finding on the same offence must be given due effect in subsequent quasi-judicial proceedings, and that such authorities cannot ignore an acquittal based on full appreciation of the same factual matrix. The penalty order, together with the appellate and revisional orders, was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental penalty could be sustained when the petitioner had already been acquitted by the Criminal Court on merits on the same facts and charges.

Analysis: The acquittal was based on a substantive appreciation of the same factual matrix and identical charges that formed the basis of the penalty. In such circumstances, the earlier criminal finding could not be ignored by the quasi-judicial authorities while continuing to uphold the penalty. Applying the principle that competent criminal court findings on the same offence should be treated as conclusive in subsequent quasi-judicial action, the impugned orders were held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty order and the orders passed in appeal and revision could not stand and were quashed, in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a criminal court has acquitted a person on merits on identical facts and charges, quasi-judicial or departmental authorities cannot ignore that finding and impose or sustain a penalty on the same foundation.

---