JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. CK Sharma Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the State respondents. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.4 by which a punishment in the form of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner had also challenged a subsequent order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-10) by which the respondent No.4 had passed an order upholding the order of compulsory retirement dated 11.12.2014 in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble Division Bench in writ appeal No. 07 of 2023. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable in the Assam Police on 24.05.1989 and since the date of his appointment, he had rendered his service with utmost dedication and sincerity. During the service career, the petitioner states that an FIR was lodged against him before the Officer-In-Charge of Diphu Police Station stating inter alia that petitioner had committed rape upon the daughter of the informant and a case was registered vide Diphu P.S. Case No. 69/2013. The police upon completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet and the trial started. 4. In the meantime, a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 21.01.2014 accompanied with a statement of allegation and list of documents. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was conducted. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry report was also submitted and based on the said enquiry report dated 11.12.2014, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2014 and it be mentioned here in that during the time when the punishment was imposed, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was going on. 5. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 acquitted the petitioner for want of evidence. In fact in the said acquittal order, the Trial Court had recorded the conclusion that the prosecution side has miserably failed to proof that the accused person is guilty of committing offences under Section 366-A/376(2)(f)/342/377 and 419 of the IPC. The said judgment and order had attained finality and it was not put to challenge in the Higher Courts of law. 6. The said judgment and order had attained finality and it was not put to challenge in the Higher Courts of law. 6. Before the Trial Court had acquitted the petitioner, the disciplinary proceeding had come to end and the punishment was imposed vide order dated 11.12.2014 and the punishment as stated above was compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner. 7. The petitioner had challenged the said order dated 11.12.2014 by filing writ petition being WP(C) no. 1747/2022 and in the said writ petition, the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not also allowed to file his reply to the enquiry report and on other grounds such as that Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer was manned by one person. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 had disposed of the writ petition by directing that the matter may be remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of giving adequate time to the petitioner to submit a reply to the enquiry report and that the disciplinary authority should pass a reasoned order. The Court, however, did not interfered with the punishment order dated 11.12.2014 and stated that the disciplinary authority should pass a fresh order by allowing the petitioner to give his reply and the said fresh order would prevail over the earlier order dated 11.12.2024. It was further observed that the grounds urged by the petitioner that Presenting Officer had acted as the Enquiry Officer, the same was rejected after perusal of the materials. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred a writ appeal being writ appeal no. 7/2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 04.04.2024 observed from the records of the case that there was no presenting officer appointed at any point of time during the pendency of the departmental proceeding and as such it was held that there was no question of presenting officer being the enquiry officer and the said appeal was dismissed. 9. 9. The reply filed by the petitioner was not considered by the authorities and the same was pending for long and the petitioner being left with no other remedy filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4666/2025 and this Court by order dated 18.08.2025 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within a time period which was communicated by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 10. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong, Diphu by letter dated 12.03.2025 intimated the petitioner to submit his reply in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 01.04.2025 which was detail in nature. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 was passed by which the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner by the earlier order was upheld by the authorities concerned. 11. It is this order that the petitioner has challenged in this instant writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly there was no presenting officer appointed during the departmental proceeding as the same is reflected in the judgment and order by the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 04.04.2024. Further, he submits that the reply submitted by him before the disciplinary authority was also not considered as is reflected from the impugned order wherein there was no discussion about his reply. He has further submitted that the petitioner was acquitted of his charges by the criminal court and the acquittal was not on any benefit of doubt or other grounds but he was acquitted on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case, which according to him is honorable acquittal. He submits that in such cases the acquittal by the criminal court has a bearing on the department proceeding and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should be interfered with. 12. To substantiate his argument, he placed few judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in which a difference is made between acquittal on other grounds and acquittal honorably. He has also placed reliance on judgments passed by the Apex Court wherein non-appointment of the presenting officer vitiates the entire proceeding. He relied on the following judgments: i) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ii) GM Tank Vs. He has also placed reliance on judgments passed by the Apex Court wherein non-appointment of the presenting officer vitiates the entire proceeding. He relied on the following judgments: i) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ii) GM Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 iii) Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 iv) State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. P. Kata Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657 v) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 13628 of 2022 By relying upon these judgments, the counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of Honourable acquittal, the petitioner may not be punished in the departmental proceeding. The learned Counsel had also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Dharanidhar Kalita Vs. Union of India reported in 2015(2) GLR 732 by which it was held that non appointment of presenting officer in a disciplinary proceeding has the effect of vitiating the entire proceeding and also the consequential penalty imposed. 13. On the other hand, Mr. CK Sharma Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to the judgment passed by this High Court was considered by the disciplinary authority and the consequential order was passed. He further submitted that records would show whether presenting officer was appointed or not during the disciplinary proceeding. Further, he submits that disciplinary proceeding and criminal proceeding can go on simultaneously and both the proceedings are based on two different standard of proof and as such he submits that any conclusion of the criminal court will have no bearing on the disciplinary proceeding which would continue only to proof the misconduct of the employee. As such he submits that the acquittal order of the petitioner by the criminal court will have no effect on the proceedings before the disciplinary authority. He also submitted that petitioner should have filed an appeal before the appropriate authority. 14. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and also have gone through the records. 15. As such he submits that the acquittal order of the petitioner by the criminal court will have no effect on the proceedings before the disciplinary authority. He also submitted that petitioner should have filed an appeal before the appropriate authority. 14. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and also have gone through the records. 15. As far as the argument that no presenting officer was appointed during the departmental proceeding and taking into account the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the records would show, this Court finds that the same was seen and the finding was recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its order dated 04.04.2024 wherein it was clearly observed that on seeing the records of the disciplinary proceeding, it revealed that no presenting officer was appointed at any point of time. As such the argument that the presenting officer was not there stands goods and in view of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court, non appointment of the presenting officer has the effect of vitiating the entire proceeding before the disciplinary authority. 16. Be that as it may, the other ground raised by the petitioner that he was acquitted of all the charges against him by the criminal court, it is seen that the prosecutrix was examined and she did not implicate the petitioner in the offences. The criminal court has also returned the finding that there was no evidence against the petitioner by examining seven witnesses and finally, the criminal court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to proof the guilt of the accused person i.e. the petitioner. 17. In Captain M. Paul Anthony(Supra), the Apex Court had held in the following terms : “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case. 36. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it purports to allow the writ petition, is upheld. The learned Single Judge has also given liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental enquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid the entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid the entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified at Rs 15,000.” 18. It is held by the Court that when the facts and evidence in both the proceeding i.e. the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were the same and there is no iota of difference, the normal conclusion which is drawn that both the departmental proceeding and criminal case being parallelly carried on and on different standard of proof, would not be applicable in the instant case. 19. It is seen that the statement of allegation was also in relation to the offence of rape committed upon the maid servant of the petitioner. The criminal case was also on the charge that the petitioner had raped the minor girl i.e. the prosecutrix. It is as such seen that the facts and evidence in both the proceedings were same without any difference. 20. The Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India (a constitution Bench Judgment) had observed that if the criminal case results in conviction, the disciplinary proceeding is bound to follow against the public servant so convicted and similarly in case of acquittal, the disciplinary proceedings will continue but when the acquittal is honourable, the disciplinary proceeding is bound to follow for the public servant so acquitted. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner was acquitted on the ground that prosecution has failed to proof the charges and the word used by the criminal court is that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish which implies that the petitioner was Honourably acquitted. 21. Further it is although stated by the state respondents in their affidavit that reply was considered by the disciplinary authority before imposing the punishment but in the impugned order nothing is reflected that the said reply was considered. It is also found that there was no presenting officer during the departmental proceeding. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is undergoing his agony since 2014 despite having acquitted by the criminal court in 2021. It is also found that there was no presenting officer during the departmental proceeding. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is undergoing his agony since 2014 despite having acquitted by the criminal court in 2021. It is not in the fitness of the things to allow a fresh departmental enquiry to be initiated against on the same set of facts on which the criminal court has acquitted him. As such this Court directs that it is in the fitness of the things that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith to the post of Constable and shall also be paid the entire arrears of salary together with all allowances and benefits from the date of suspension and he should be allowed to work till his retirement. The said exercise should be done within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 22. Both the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure- 2 to the Writ Petition) and impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) by which the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner are set aside and quashed. 23. The petitioner is directed to place this judgment and order before the appointing authority i.e. respondent No. 4 at the earliest. 24. The Writ Petition is disposed of.