PRADUMN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.12.2001 (Annexure -3), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Palamau (Respondent No.4) and also for quashing the order dated 18.8.2003 (Annexure -6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj (Respondent No.3), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated.

(3.) THE grounds on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders are that the Respondents -authorities have committed serious impropriety in passing the impugned orders of dismissal without considering the fact that in the departmental enquiry, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of his conviction by the trial court, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and on the basis of the statements of the informant/complainant, permission was granted to compound the offence and consequently, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge after setting aside the earlier order of his conviction. Learned counsel submits that such being the facts, the petitioner is certainly entitled under the provisions of Rule 848 of the Police Manual, to have the benefit of reconsideration of the order of dismissal passed against him and the Disciplinary Authority is accordingly, obliged to reconsider the petitioner's case in the light of the acquittal secured by him in the criminal proceedings.