JAVED SHOUKAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his dismissal from service passed by respondent no.4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi in a departmental proceeding No. 69/94 and also the orders dated 13.5.98 and 27.3.99 passed by respondent nos.

(2.) AND 3, the appellate and revisional authorities respectively who have affirmed the order of punishment of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding.

(3.) MRS . Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of dismissal from service as being wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the same and similar charges for which criminal case was initiated against the petitioner. In the said criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted by the court of Sessions with specific finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of acquittal was brought to the notice of the appellate authority and the respondent, although took notice of the judgment, but totally ignored the same and held that the charges of indiscipline and irresponsibility have been proved. Learned counsel lastly submitted that when the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case after the court of Sessions recorded a conclusive finding that the charges were not proved, then the order of dismissal in a departmental proceeding on the same charges cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Cap. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and others reported in 1999 (3) S.C.C. 679. Learned counsel further relied upon the decisions in the case of Dhanabal and anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1980 S.C. 628) and in the case of Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit Kaur and anr. reported in AIR 1972. S.C. 468 for the proposition that the statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. is not the substantive piece of evidence and the same may be used only to corroborate the statement of the witnesses or to contradict them.