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 Inquiry 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 Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry 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 orosecutaon was thrown out and the aooellant was acouitted. In this situation. therefore. where the appellant is acouitted bv a iudicia! Dronouncement with the findino that the "raid and recoverv" at the residence of the apoellant were not oroved, it would be uniust, urtlair and rather oooressive to allow the findinqs recorded at the exDarte deDartmental proceed:nos, to stand.
