JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of order dated 5.4.1989 (Annex.-5) and order dated 18.3.1996 (Annex.-7) whereby penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner alongwith withholding the amount of difference of subsistence allowance and salary payable to the petitioner during the suspension period.
2. Facts of the case indicate that the petitioner was working on the post of U.D.C. in the office of the Collector. Barmer. He was trapped by the Anti Corruption Department and was allegedly found accepting illegal gratification and bribe whereupon the department prosecuted him in criminal court for offences under [SECTION], read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. After regular trial, the Trial Court, however, acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case of the charges levelled against him by judgment dated 13.7.1982. The petitioner remained in suspension during this period. It may be noted here that the petitioner was substantially acquitted in the criminal case and not merely for some lacunae or on technical ground.
3. After about three years the Department, however, chose to proceed against the petitioner in domestic enquiry on the identical charges and accordingly initiated enquiry against him under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. At the domestic enquiry, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the Department that he had already been acquitted of the charges by the Trial Court and, therefore, further inquiry for the same charges cannot be held after lapse of this much time.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the criminal court recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the petitioner, the respondents could not have traversed beyond a judicial finding and, therefore, after lapse of about three years commencement of the enquiry by the department in itself was arbitrary and illegal. He has argued that most of the witnesses whom prosecution examined at the trial were examined by the department at the enquiry as departmental witnesses and, therefore, on the identical set of evidence finding of guilt against judicial finding of acquittal could not be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the opportunity of hearing afforded to him by the Disciplinary Authority had no meaning and, therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings stood vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that despite acquittal at the trial by the criminal court, there is no bar upon the Department to conduct an enquiry for the misconduct committed by the delinquent incumbent. He contended that looking to the misconduct of the petitioner he has rightly been punished with the penalty imposed upon him. He has, therefore, supported the order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority.
7. The department is always at liberty to proceed against an erring employee inspite of the fact whether criminal trial is pending against him or not. Both the proceedings are separate in nature and scope and it is not necessary that if acquittal is recorded by the criminal court the domestic proceedings should be halted. However, in the instant case, prejudicial approach has been shown by the department in commencing the enquiry after lapse of considerable time and more particularly almost after three years of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal trial.
8. The Law does not bar a domestic enquiry in a case where the delinquent is also facing criminal proceedings in Court of law over the same charges and there is consensus of judicial opinion on the principle that proceedings can go on simultaneously. The reason is obvious for the proposition in law inasmuch as criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Enforcement of discipline is prime factor guiding the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority may have to bear in mind the other factors as well pertinent to administration and management of the establishment and, therefore, the integrity of the delinquent would be at stake in the departmental proceedings. However, the requirements are distinctly distinguishable in the criminal proceedings and there the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. But, the aforesaid proposition is stalled from operation if criminal and departmental proceedings are based on identical set of facts and evidence. If the charges are sought to be proved at the departmental enquiry by the same set of evidence as led before the criminal Court by the prosecution, in the event of acquittal by the criminal Court, the department cannot be permitted to record finding of guilt against the delinquent after initiating inquiry after three years. In the case in hand, the department produced witnesses who were examined by the prosecution at the trial in the criminal Court against the petitioner. They were the police and panch witnesses and, therefore, in the event of acquittal by the criminal Court, thereafter, the department could not have contemplated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner employing the same set of evidence against the petitioner. The departmental witnesses [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were the same persons who were examined by the prosecution at the trial in the criminal Court against the petitioner. The law in this behalf is well settled and reference may be made of the case of [PRECEDENT]., .
10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that copy of the enquiry report was admittedly not supplied to the petitioner and though the Disciplinary Authority afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but, without supplying the copy of the enquiry report, the opportunity of hearing in itself cannot be held to be sufficient to meet the requirements of principles of natural justice. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], , the law is very specific and leaves the enquiry vitiated for failure of the department to supply copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee who need further be heard by the Disciplinary Authority before recording the finding of guilt against him.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Orders impugned Annex.-5 dated 5.4.1989 and Annex.-7 dated 18.3.1996 are quashed and set aside with consequential benefits.