Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) WHEN the matter is called out, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor on behalf of the respondents. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that this petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 51/19 of 2014 order dated 08.08.2014, which is at Annexure -8 to the memo of this petition. In O.A. this petitioner has challenged the memorandum of charge -sheet dated 18.03.2008, by which departmental proceedings were initiated against him for acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and other charges. This petitioner has also challenged the order of respondent No. 1 dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure -10).
(2.) IT further appears that this applicant has challenged the O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, for quashing of the memorandum of charge -sheet dated 18.03.2008, by which a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him for gross misconduct of acceptance of illegal gratification for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from one Niranjan Sahu, Managing Partner, M/s. Om Security and Services, Bhubaneswar for regularizing the contract for providing security personnel at different BSNL/Non -BSNL, BTS sites and also for extension of contract. It further appears that the main ground agitated by this petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal is that he has been acquitted for the criminal charges of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and therefore, no departmental enquiry can be initiated.
(3.) IT appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that there is no honourable acquittal of this petitioner in the criminal proceedings, hence, departmental proceeding is no bar against this petitioner. Moreover, looking to the criminal charges as well as the charges levelled against this petitioner or so far a departmental proceeding is concerned, they do not coincide with each other.;