R.N. Singh, Member (J):

1. Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. To quash the impugned order and also the entire departmental proceeding by declaring the action of respondents as illegal, arbitrator, violative of the Principal of Natural Justice, violation of the Fundamental Principle of law and Justice.

2. To direct the Respondents to accept the resignation of the petitioner as submitted by her vide its letter dated 8-6-2006.

3. Or in the alternate remand the matter back to the respondents for reconsider the impugned order in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above.”

4. Or to declare the impugned order as harass, disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and mould the punishment in proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

5. Cost of the application in favour of the applicant.

6. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may please be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined as an Assistant Public Prosecutor, Government of NCT of Delhi on 02.03.1994 after qualifying the UPSC examination. She was promoted as Additional Public Prosecutor/Senior Public Prosecutor in March, 1997 on ad hoc basis and was confirmed in the said post in December, 1999.

2.1 The CBI conducted a raid at the house of the applicant and registered a case against her under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 09.03.2004. Thereafter the charge-sheet was filed on 27.12.2005.

2.2 The charges were framed against the applicant by the learned Court. The order framing of charge was challenged by her before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi but the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Criminal (Misc.) Main filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.3 The respondents, on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI in December, 2005,, i.e., after more than 02 years, issued a charge-sheet dated 27.04.2006 identical to the false charges levelled by the CBI in the charge- sheet filed in the CBI Court by taking a few documents and witnesses from the chargesheet filed by the CBI. It is pointed out that the witnesses and documents filed in the departmental charge sheet are common to the charge sheet filed by the CBI against the applicant.

2.4 It is submitted that after an elaborate trial of 8 long years, the applicant was acquitted by the learned CBI Court vide its judgment dated 12.11.2014. Each and every aspect and charge was considered by the learned CBI Judge and it is a matter of record that the judgment has not been challenged by the CBI and has thus attained finality.

2.5 It is no more res integra and has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the acquittal by the CBI Court does not bar a departmental proceeding against the accused, however, in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr., Appeal (Civil) No.2582 of 2006, decided on 10.04.2006, while considering the various case- laws on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the accused and the charge before the criminal Court are one and the same, and when the accused has been acquitted of the charges by the Criminal Court, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

“The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.

2.6 It is submitted that in the present case, the witnesses and documents filed in the departmental charge sheet are common to the charge sheet filed by the CBI against the applicant. Even the charges against the applicant herein are identical to the charges before the Criminal Court. Similarly, the documents filed in the departmental chargesheet are also the same to that filed before the learned counsel by the CBI.

2.7 It is submitted that the entire case against the applicant is based on the search and seizure conducted by the CBI, at her residence. Further, in the departmental charge-sheet the I/O of the case has categorically stated at point no.(iv) and (vii) that he had conducted the search of the residence of the applicant and seized the documents. Similarly, the subsequent I/O Sh. Ram Singh also submitted that the CBI sent the relevant documents to the Delhi Government and the same have been attested by him.

2.8 It is further submitted that on the basis of the investigation, search and seizure conducted by the I/O and the documents filed by the CBI, the Criminal Court had acquitted the applicant and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank (supra) the applicant could not have been awarded the punishment of dismissal of service by the respondents.

2.9 It is further submitted that during her tenure till filing of the CBI case, the applicant had an unblemished record of service and had earned good reputation and recognition for her work in the department and because of that she got promotion in the department. Even from the documents and record collected by the CBI, no case of DA can be made out against the applicant. However, on the basis of the false and fabricated statements and witnesses and documents of the CBI, the department had issued the charge-sheet in the matter and later on awarded the most severe penalty of dismissal from service.

2.10 It is further pointed out that the departmental enquiry had been started after seven years after the issuance of the Charge Sheet with an ulterior motive to frustrate the defence of the applicant in the criminal trial. Otherwise also, issue of charge-sheet after two years of the alleged misconduct and thereafter keeping the enquiry in suspense for about almost seven years, amounts to violation of natural justice and as such the departmental proceedings ought not to have been continued against the applicant.

2.11 It is further pointed out that there is an inordinate delay of two years in issuance of the charge sheet from the date of the alleged misconduct and for keeping the departmental inquiry on hold for seven years from the date of issue of the charge-sheet. The entire delay has caused a great prejudice to the applicant and amounts to grave injustice and denial of natural justice to her, as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in cases of State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goel, 1995 (2) JT SC 18, M.P. Sachdeva v. State of H.P., 1991 (1) SLR 349 (HPAT), State of M.P. v. Bani Singh & Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, [LQ/SC/1990/210] Mohinder Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 82 (1999) DLT 840, N.S. Bhatnagar v. Union of India, 92 (2001) DLT 301 (DB), State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan, JT 1998 (3) SC 123 [LQ/SC/1998/448] , D.P. Bambah v. Union of India, 74 (1998) DLT 437 [LQ/DelHC/1998/506] , Than Singh v. Union of India, 2003 III AD (Delhi) 658, M.L. Tahiliani v. DDA, 92 (2002) DLT 771 [LQ/DelHC/2002/1028] , S.D. Gupta v. Punjab National Bank & Others, 2004 AD (Delhi) 309.

2.12 It is further submitted that the applicant had already submitted her resignation dated 08.06.2006 to the respondents and despite the said fact, the department chose to proceed with the proceedings. Even otherwise, the acquittal by the Criminal Court and award of punishment of dismissal of service by the Department, on the same set of facts, witnesses and evidence is against the principles of natural justice, fairness and equity.

2.13 It is lastly submitted that without prejudice to her rights and contentions, the applicant is willing to submit her resignation with immediate effect, as soon as she is reinstated in service as she has no interest in joining the service but has a strong desire of removing the blot on her name because of the departmental proceedings against her which is based on false and frivolous evidence and documents.

2.14 In view of the above, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the respondents against the applicant herein may be set aside being bad in law and being violative of principles of natural justice or in the alternative the matter may be remanded back to be reconsidered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.15 It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the witnesses and documents filed in the departmental charge-sheet for which the enquiry was held, were common to the charge-sheet filed by the CBI against the applicant.

2.16 It is further submitted that the chargesheet was not the outcome of independent decision of the respondents and was issued by the respondents on the insistence of CBI and was without application of mind and without conducting any preliminary investigation. She was also not given any opportunity to rebut the charges as the allegations, witnesses and documents were taken by the respondents from the investigation conducted by the CBI.

2.17 It is further submitted that the chargesheet was issued by the respondents only for the reason that the case of the applicant was investigated by the CBI and charge-sheet thereof filed. The respondents were under a wrong belief that that it is mandatory to issue charge-sheet to the applicant if a charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI which is a misnomer in law.

2.18 The applicant had an unblemished record of service and has earned good reputation and recognition for her work in the department and because of her work, she has got promotion. From the documents and record collected by the CBI, no case of Disproportionate Assets (DA) was made out against her. However, she has been acquitted from the charges by the Special Judge, CBI, Dwarka Court, New Delhi vide order dated 12.11.2014.

2.19 While the criminal proceedings are pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI against the applicant on the same issues, the respondents in utter disregard to the well settled principle of law and fundamental principle of justice and without application of mind issued the charge-sheet and conducted the enquiry proceeding. It is pointed out that departmental enquiry was started after seven years with an ulterior motive to punish the applicant without even waiting for the outcome of the trial in the CBI Court on the same issues.

2.20 It is further submitted that the respondents instead of shelving the proposed departmental enquiry till the final outcome of the criminal trial before the competent court on the issues involved common in both the cases, continued with the enquiry. This was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, power and authority vested with the respondents and was done with an ulterior motive to disclose the defence of the applicant in the departmental enquiry so that her defence gets frustrated in the criminal trial which is prejudicial to the interest of the applicant.

2.21 The applicant denied all the charges levelled against her in the charge-sheet and the same were being contested by her in the criminal court before the Special Judge, CBI, Dwarka Court, New Delhi.

2.22 It is further submitted that although the respondents were well aware of the pendency of the criminal trial, yet the applicant requested the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal trial in the case as in both the cases the matter in issues and the charge-sheet, documents and witnesses are common in the departmental enquiry/charge-sheet and forming the part of the criminal trial.

2.23 It is further pointed out that the respondents did not consider the request of applicant favourably. Hence, she was left with no alternate remedy except to file OA No.3997/2013 and OA No.4108 of 2013 with a prayer for issue of appropriate direction directing the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the applicant in abeyance till conclusion of the criminal trial against the applicant and also to quash the entire proceeding. These cases were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to challenge the disciplinary action against her before appropriate forum.

2.24 Hence the applicant was left with no alternative but to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice and submitted its report against which she filed her reply with a request to exonerate the applicant from the charges.

2.25 It is also pointed out that the applicant even before the enquiry proceedings gave a request letter dated 8-6-2006 and submitted her resignation and requested the respondents that her resignation may be considered without any terminal benefits.

2.26 Now since the enquiry has been concluded, the applicant has now withdrawn the aforesaid OAs and as the fresh cause of action has arisen upon receipt of the impugned order, the instant OA is filed.

3. Per contra, Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the averments of the applicant made in the OA and by referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no official record that Mrs. Babli Sharma is a nick name of Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj, i.e., the applicant. She has not produced any documentary evidence to show that it was her second name and being a govt. servant she did not inform the department about this assumed name. Thus, she has failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of govt. servant by furnishing false information to banks in violation of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is submitted the competent authority after due application of mind and after considering the enquiry report and all relevant materials has passed the order of dismissal.

3.1 Mr. Anand submitted that the allegations in the DE and in criminal case are not identical. The enquiry officer has clearly held the charge as proved against the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that acquittal in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction, as the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3.

3.2 It is further submitted that at every stage of the departmental proceedings the applicant has been given due opportunity and hence the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with.

3.3 Mr. Anand further submitted that the enquiry officer in its analysis has clearly recorded that “Even an affidavit (Ex.P-10/F) of Sh. Sanjay Kaul clearly states that he had sold his share of the said property to Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj. These are in addition to the GPA, Deed of Will and the Agreement to Sell the said property. How this property was sold by Sh. Sanjay Kaul subsequently to someone else may be either due to repurchase of said property by him from the CO or otherwise.

There is no residential or ID proof (photo ID Card, Passport, Driving Licence or Ration Card etc.) in the name of Babli Sharma and how a/cs were opened in the Banks is not clearl. Beside, no PAN number has been given while depositing heavy cash which is mandatory under IT Act/Rules. In fact, there is no PAN Card in the name of Babli Sharma which gives credence to the charge of camouflage. PO’s arguments weigh heavily against the CO to prove the charges.

3.3 It was further recorded that “She has claimed that she had informed the department about transactions of immovable property detained in the charge sheet as per photocopies of different letters mentioned in her written statement of defence and copies enclosed thereto. The PO has claimed that these letters are fabricated subsequently firstly because these bear rubber stamps of circular nature whereas the shape of rubber stamps used at the relevant point to time was oblong in shape.

3.4 Thus, the enquiry officer has clearly proved the charge against the applicant. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the OA is required to be dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant has denied the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and has reiterated his pleas taken in the OA and while arguing the matter at the time of final hearing. He, however, added that DE has been initiated against the applicant because the CBI has made a raid at the residence of the applicant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings on record.

6. We will now consider the decision of the Special Judge, PC Act, CBI, Dwarka Courts. The following charges were levelled by the CBI against the applicant:

“8. A search was conducted at the house of the accused situated at A 1/66, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi on 10.03.2004 in the presence of independent witnesses and an inventory of goods was prepared and documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo.

9. As per CBI, for the purpose of calculating disproportionate assets, the check period was taken from 01.04.1994 to 10.03.2004.

10. It is averred that at the beginning of the check period i.e. on 01.04.1994, accused was in possession of only limited movable assets. An amount of Rs. 53,609/, which was received by her as salary in her previous employment has been taken as her Assets at the beginning of the check period.

11. It is alleged that at the end of the check period that is on 10th of March 2004, the accused was found in possession of a house at Panchsheel Enclave, a shop at Nehru Place and agricultural land in village Kapashera, apart from various other monetary investments. Total movable and immovable assets found in possession of the accused were computed at Rs. 28,21,963/ as detailed below:

Immovable Assets at the end of check period Value (In Rs.)

1) House No. A1/66, Panchsheel Enclave Rs. 9,00,000/ New Delhi.

2) Land in village Kapashera, New Delhi Rs. 6,00,000/ (Khasra No. 563 & 564) 3) Shop No. 811, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Rs. 70,000/

Total : Rs. 15,70,000

Movable Assets at the end of check period Value ( In Rs. )

1) National Saving Certificate Rs. 1,04,000/

Nos.6NS43EE11 1177980, 35CC174335,35CC174761 63 etc.)

2) Kisan Vikas Patra Certificate Rs. 30,000/ (6NS25EE769918920,6NS25EE909634, 6NS27DD619998620005 etc.)

3) Balance in various banks Rs. 3,35,531/ Bank A/C No. Canara Bank , Shahdara 17965 SBI, Tis Hazari 40792 SBI, Tis Hazari PPF A/c No. 1027 Vaisya Coop. New Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj 22757 Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi 22220 UCO Bank, Parliament House Extn. 3335 Counter, New Delhi.

Syndicate Bank, International Branch 63274 Connaught Place, New Delhi.

Syndicate Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 255504 SBI, Delhi Milk Scheme, Shadipur, New Delhi. 12541 Punjab & Sind Bank, Babarpur, Delhi 8629 Post Office Saving Bank, GPO6, Delhi 1147670 Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sarai Julena, Delhi. 9882

4) Bonds of ICICI Rs. 50,000/

5) Bonds of IDBI Rs. 20,000/

6) Deposits in FDR ( No. 1763/R/2003) at Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd., Shahdara Rs. 45,743/

7) Investment in LIC policy No. 120406720 Rs. 86,241/

8) Investment in LIC policy No. 112770991 Rs. 39,008/

9) Investment in LIC policy No. 111077867 Rs.34,979/

10) Cash recovered during house search of Ms. Anjali on 10.3.20014 Rs. 96,000/

11) Cost of the household articles Rs. 2,92,261/

12) Cost of jewellery recovered during search of Locker No. CV/62 at Syndicate Bank, K.G.Marg, New Delhi. Rs. 1,18,200/

Total= Rs. 12,51,963/

Total Assets found at the end of the Check period = Rs. 15,70,000 + Rs. 12,51963

= Rs. 2821963/

12. It is further alleged that during the check period, the accused purchased and sold various properties and that her total income from all sources was Rs. 59,84,988/, as detailed below:

Income during the check period Value ( in Rs. )

1. Income from carry home salary Rs. 12,40,895/

2. House Loan from HDFC ( A/c No. 577618) for purchase of house at Rs. 6,00,000/ Sushant Lok.

3. House Loan from HDFC ( A/c No. 602514) for construction of house at Rs. 3,50,000/ Sushant Lok.

4. Income by sale of house No. C1618, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Rs. 30,00,000/

5. Income by sale of land at Kapashera Village (Khasra No. 79 & 80) Rs. 3,25,000/

6. Income from refund of advance from Naval Technical Cooperative Housing Rs. 3,11,000/ Society, Dwarka.

7. Survival benefit of LIC policy No. 120406720 Rs. 60,000/

8. Interest from saving accounts Rs. 85,593/

Total =Rs. 59,84,988/

13. It is revealed, during investigation, that accused incurred expenditure amounting to Rs. 73,48,796/ during the check period i.e. 01.04.1994 to 10.03.2004 as detailed below: Expenditure during check period Value ( in Rs. )

1. Household/kitchen expenditure Rs. 4,13,631/

taken as 1/3 of carry home salary)

2. Cost of purchase of house No. C1618 Rs. 7,71,620/ Sushant Lok

3. Cost of Purchase of land at village Kapashera including stamp duty for Rs. 2,82,500/ registration.

4. Cost of construction of house no. C1618 Rs. 21,00,000/ Sushant Lok, Gurgaon.

5. Stamp duty paid at the time of purchase Rs. 23,375/ of house at C1618, Sushant Lok by Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj.

6. Interest paid to HDFC Ltd. in account no. Rs. 46,455/ 602514 including processing and administrative charges.

7. Loan amount repaid to HDFC in Rs. 4,59,438/ account no. 577618 including fee and processing charges.

8. Transfer charges for purchase of shop Rs. 53,050/ no. 811, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

9. Expenditure on stamp duty and Rs. 68,000/ Corporation tax of House No. A1/66, Panchsheel Enclave.

10. Payment of telephone bill of tel. no. Rs. 11,983/ 26498920

11. Payment of mobile bill of mobile no. Rs. 28,731/ 3230623

12. Payment of telephone bill of tel. no. Rs. 17,013/ 26498282

13. Payment of telephone bill of tel. no. Rs. 13,883/ 26497736

14. Payment of Electricity bills of House no. Rs. 32,591/ A1/66, Panchsheel Enclave

15. Payment of Water bills of House No. Rs. 1,734/ A1/66, Panchsheel Enclave

16. Payment of Medical charges at the Rs. 5000/ time of delivery of son of Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj.

17. Medical expenses of son of Ms. Anjali Rs. 3,792/ Bhardwaj

18. Cash given to Shri Anjum Bhardwaj Rs. 6,00,000/ for construction of house at 2/2, Babarpur Shahdara as per intimation given by Shri Anjum Bhardwaj to M.C.D.

19. Payments made to Shri Dimple Anand Rs. 16,75,000/ from Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj's Bank A/c No. 63274 Syndicate Bank, Connaught Place, FX Branch, New Delhi.

20. Purchase of FDR no. 047698, UCO Bank Rs. 80,000/

21. Loan repayment to HDFC Ltd. in Rs. 3,50,000/ account no. 602515

22. Membership fee of Naval Technical Rs. 3,11,000/ Coop. Housing Society, Dwarka.

Total= Rs. 73,48,796/

14. It is averred in the charge sheet that during the check period from 1.4.1994 to 10.3.2004, accused has acquired assets worth Rs. 41,32,162/ in her name, which are disproportionate to her known sources of income and which she could not satisfactorily account for, as detailed below: (A) Assets at the beginning of the check period Rs. 53,609/ (B) Assets at the end of the check period Rs. 28,21,963/ (C) Income during the check period Rs. 59,84,988/ (D) Expenditure during the check period Rs. 73,48,796/ Disproportionate Assets ( D.A) = ( BA) + ( DC) = ( 28,21,96353,609) + (73,48,796 - 59,84,988) = Rs. 41,32,162.”

7. The learned Judge, after considering the decisions on the subject and relevant provisions of the law, held as follows:

115. The conclusion therefore is that the accused Anjali Bhardwaj was found in possession of unexplained assets of the value of Rs. 4 26778/. This comes to 7.02% of her total income during the check period.

116. However in a judgment reported as Krishnanand Agnihotri versus state of MP, (1977) 1 SCC 816, [LQ/SC/1976/512] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the assets possessed by the accused in excess of the surplus income are less than 10% of the total income, the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. In another judgement in M Krishna Reddy versus state deputy Supt of police Hyderabad reported as (1992) 4 SCC 45, [LQ/SC/1992/438] the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the appellant's contention to grant a benefit of 20% of the total income on this count, but upheld the benefit of 10% granted by the Hon'ble High Court.

117. Going by the above position of law, in the case on hand, the accused's possession of excess assets to the tune of 7.02% of total income during the check period falls short of being termed as "disproportionate to her known sources of income" and CBI Case No.44/11 72 DOD: 12.11.2014 CBI Case No.44/11 RC no. AC1/2004/CBI/SPE/ACU1/New Delhi CBI Vs. Anjali Bhardwaj therefore, she cannot be convicted under section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the accused Anjali Bhardwaj is hereby acquitted of the charge against her in this case. Her Bail Bonds stand cancelled and the surety discharged. The accused shall however furnish fresh bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC, binding herself to appear before the Appellate Court if called,upto a period of six months from today. After furnishing bail bonds, the file be consigned to record room.”

8. Now coming back to the case in hand, we find that following articles of charge have been levelled against the applicant by the respondents in the departmental charge-sheet:

“Article-I

That the said Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj while functioning as Asstt. Public Prosecutor and Addl. Public Prosecutor during the period from April, 1994 to March, 2004, opened a saving bank account No.9382 on 19.6.2003 at Jamia Co-operative Bank Ltd., Okhla Road, New Delhi branch with an initial deposit of Rs.1,90,000/- under the assured name of Babli Sharma and declaring her occupation as house wife. Similarly, Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj opened another saving bank account no.22220 on 6.4.1999 at Syndicate Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi branch under the assured name of Babli Sharma. In another instance, Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj obtained membership card of India Habitet Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi impersonating herself as Smt. Gyan Sharma, w/o Shri Vinok Kumar Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi Judicial Services while fixing her own photograph on identity card. Therefore, Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant by furnishing false information to Banks and other institutions in violation of Rule 3 of CSS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj acquired and disposed of a number of immovable properties by way of purchase of sale, without previous intimation to the competent authority and without submitting annual property returns giving full particulars regarding acquisition of these properties in violation of Rule 18(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. She also entered into transactions of movable property worth over Rs.15.000/- without intimating the competent authority thereby violating Rule 18(3) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.

Thus, Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

9. It would be clear from the above that the applicant has been charged for the identical charges in the departmental charge-sheet which had been levelled by the CBI in its charge-sheet. We are of the considered view that once the facts and evidence in the departmental proceedings as well as in criminal proceedings are same, without there being any iota of difference, the respondents are not justified in issuing departmental charge-sheet to the applicant on the same charges, on which the criminal court has already acquitted her, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank (supra). The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. As regards the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in State of Karnataka v. Umesh (supra) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (supra), we find that in those cases the facts are distinguishable and hence are of no help to the respondents.

10. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the OA succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the entire departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant are declared as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The applicant shall be entitled to the consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.

11. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.