BRAJ KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 30.10.1998 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 29.9.1999, contained in Annexures 6 and 7 respectively.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts of the as Shift Guard on 27.4.1978 in the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board '). It is claimed that there was no complaint against him in whole of his service career except that for the first time, a criminal case was instituted against him for recovery 4/1/2013 Page 1 of illegal arms and ammunition and the properties snatched in a case of dacoity from a house where he and one Surendra Singh were present. The petitioner was acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, vide order/judgment dated 29.2.1996 (An -nexure 1) passed in Sessions Trial No. 57/87 corresponding to Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 105/85. However, on account of arrest of the petitioner in the said case, he was placed under suspension, vide Office Order No. 57 dated 14.3.1985. Later the order of suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceeding to be initiated against him. Murari Krishna Prasad Sinha Versus State Of Bihar

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case as also the departmental proceeding were based on identical set of facts, namely, the raid conducted at the official quarter no. EF/13 and the presence of this petitioner with Surendra Singh in the said quarter at the time of raid and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom. On that basis the petitioner was also charged with that he fully knew.the culprits and that he had also contacts with them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were also examined in the criminal case besides several other witnesses, but the Court on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the petitioner was acquitted. In this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner lias submitted that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the judicial pronouncement, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings of even of the enquiry officer to stand. It is submitted that in the case of M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that 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 such cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed also on the ground that the petitioner was denied of the opportunity of making representation before differing with the findings i and that he was simply given second show cause notice after recording finding differing with the finding of the enquiry officer only against the proposed punishment, which is contrary to the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.