G.M. TANK versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 10-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
G.M. TANK 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
MAY 10, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Disciplinary proceedings-Government servant regularly submitting 
property return-Investigation against him by Anti-Corruption Bureau for 
properties disproportionate to his known sources of income-On their 
report, in disciplinary proceedings he was found guilty of charge and 
dismissed from service-However, on the same report, in criminal case for 
alleged offence under Section 5(J)(e) read with Section 5(2) of prevention 
of Corruption Act, I 947, he was honourably acquitted by way of complete 
exoneration and not by giving benefit of doubt, and same was not challenged 
any further-Challenge to dismissal from service on basis of acquittal in 
criminal case--Held: In departmental proceedings and criminal case charges, 
evidence, wilnesses and circumstances were one and same-In criminal case 
judgment was made after a regular trial and on hot contest-In such a case, 
honourable acquittal of employee duringpendency of proceedings challenging 
dismissal required to be taken note of-Usual distinction between departmental 
and criminal proceedings on basis of approach and burden of proof found 
not applicable-It was unjust, unfair and oppressive to allow findings in 
departmental proceedings to stand-It was more so as there was no evidence 
against the employee that he was guilty of the charge. 
Appellant was a government servant and was regularly submitting 
his property return showing all his movable and immovable properties. 
As per his Department, his movable and immovable properties were 
disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Anti-Corruption 
Bureau carried out an investigation against him and submitted a report. 
On the basis of this report a charge sheet was issued alleging that he had 
illegally accumulated the excess income by way of gratification. He 
denied the allegations as well as charges made in the charge sheet. A 
departmental enquiry was ordered wherein he was found guilty of the 
charge, and thereupon he was dismissed from the service as punishment. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On the basis of above report Anti-Corruption Bureau had also lodged 
H 
253 
A 
B 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
a criminal complaint for the alleged offence punishable under Section 
S(l)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
However, appellant was honourably acquitted of the charge of that 
offence on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the charges 
levelled against him. This acquittal was by way of complete exoneration 
and not by giving benefit of doubt. Respondents did not challenge it 
before any forum and it became final. 
Against the dismissal order, the appellant moved the High Court 
wherein his dismissal was confirmed. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
Appellant contended that (a) as he had been honourable acquitted 
D 
by the competent Court the dismissal order based on same set of facts 
and evidence on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the 
interest of justice (b) the acquittal in the criminal case was a relevant 
factor, as it was on merits, clean and not based on benefit of doubt or 
any technical proposition (c) there is no evidence to hold him guilty for 
the charges in the departmental enquiry; (d) the Enquiry Officer has 
given finding of fact in favour of the appellant and despite that the 
Enquiry Officer has found the appellant guilty of the charges; (e) additional 
fact was also brought to the notice of the High Court that he was 
acquitted in the criminal case of same charge but it did not consider it 
E 
the same (t) since he has been exonerated of the charge, he was entitled 
to reinstatement with full salary, allowance and subsequent promotions. 
F 
G 
H 
Respondent contended that (a) the total income of the appellant out 
of the salary, interest, rent etc. could not be sufficient to acquire the 
property owned by the appellant and that the total value of the movable 
and immovable and other properties acquired by the appellant had been 
found more than the known source of income by the appellant (b) that 
unlike in criminal trial, the degree of proof in the domestic enquiry is 
restricted to preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable 
doubt and that the acquittal in a criminal trial on the charges of corruption 
under the P.C. Act ipso facto could not be projected as a weapon to undo 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.