Lawful dismissal after criminal acquittal: Supreme Court of Cassation clarifies the autonomy of disciplinary proceedings

With judgment no. 4684 of 2 March 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation once again addressed the relationship between lawful dismissal and criminal acquittal, affirming that a favorable outcome in criminal proceedings does not, in itself, exclude the disciplinary relevance of an employee’s conduct.

This ruling is of particular importance for both employees and employers, as it reaffirms the autonomy between criminal liability and disciplinary liability, with significant practical implications for the management of internal proceedings.

The case and regulatory framework

The case originated from the disciplinary dismissal imposed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance on a senior manager, following disciplinary proceedings that had been suspended pending the outcome of parallel criminal proceedings.

Although the employee had been fully acquitted in the criminal trial (“for not having committed the act”), the administration nonetheless considered that the conduct which had emerged—characterized by inertia and a failure to exercise oversight in the face of unlawful acts committed by others—constituted a breach of official duties sufficient to justify dismissal.

At first instance, the dismissal was declared unlawful. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, finding the dismissal to be justified. The matter was therefore brought before the Supreme Court of Cassation.

From a regulatory standpoint, the dispute falls within the framework set out in Articles 55-bis and 55-ter of Legislative Decree no. 165/2001, which govern the relationship between disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, as well as the general principles concerning disciplinary charges and the protection of the right of defense.

The legal issue

The central issue in the case concerned whether a dismissal may be deemed lawful even in the presence of a criminal acquittal, and the extent to which the employer may rely on elements arising from criminal proceedings.

In particular, the claimant argued that:

• the different legal characterization of the facts in the criminal proceedings required a new disciplinary charge;
• the administration could not base the dismissal on the same facts that had been the subject of acquittal.

These arguments engage two fundamental principles:

• the autonomy between criminal and disciplinary proceedings;
• the immutability of disciplinary charges, understood as the correspondence between the facts alleged and those underlying the dismissal.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation

The Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, confirming the lawfulness of the dismissal and clarifying several key principles.

Autonomy between criminal and disciplinary proceedings

The Court reiterated that, once the so-called “criminal precondition” has been overcome, the employer is entitled to independently assess the facts established in the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, a criminal acquittal does not prevent a different assessment in disciplinary proceedings, provided that such assessment is based on an autonomous evaluation of the conduct.

In the case at hand, the relevant conduct did not coincide with the criminal offence, but rather with an omission—namely, the failure to exercise oversight despite awareness of unlawful conduct—which was deemed sufficient to breach duties of loyalty and fairness.

Use of evidence from criminal proceedings

The Court confirmed that documents and evidence from criminal proceedings may be used:

• to formulate disciplinary charges;
• as evidence in civil proceedings.

No separate or independent investigation is required, provided that adversarial proceedings and the employee’s right of defense are fully guaranteed.

Immutability of charges and legal characterization of facts

A key aspect of the decision concerns the principle of immutability of disciplinary charges.

The Court clarified that:

• what must remain unchanged is the material fact underlying the charge;
• the legal characterization of that fact may, however, be modified.

In this case, the Court found no substantial alteration of the facts, but merely a different legal characterization of the same conduct (inertia/omission), which had been known to the employee from the outset.

Ratio decidendi

The decision is grounded in the principle that disciplinary relevance does not depend on the existence of a criminal offence, but rather on whether the conduct undermines the relationship of trust.

In this case, the omission—while not constituting a criminal offence—was deemed sufficiently serious to irreparably damage the employment relationship.