PANDAV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8th January, 2001 passed by the Commandant, 67 Battl., C.R.P.F. (Respondent No. 3), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service for charges of absent without leave and misconduct for the period between 5.5.2000 to 13.7.2000 (70 days) and also on the ground of helping petitioner's brother to get appointment in Bihar Police as Constable, for which he was arrested and prosecuted, The brief facts, giving rise to the present case, are as under:--

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the order of dismissal is a very harsh penalty, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner and more particularly in view of the fact that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in respect of the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the appellate authority did not consider the submissions made before it, in respect of acquittal by the criminal court, in its proper perspective.

(3.) As against that, learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India submitted that the petitioner was working with a disciplined force and looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with law. Likewise, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority also conducted the proceedings in accordance with law and all reasonable opportunity which was required to be afforded to the petitioner, was given to him and after careful consideration of the materials available with the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, the decision with regard to imposition of penalty of dismissal from service has been taken and therefore, no interference is called for, by this Court, while dealing with it, in the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the appellate authority did consider the submissions made by the petitioner that he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in a criminal case. However, the appellate authority while dealing with this submission came to the conclusion that the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution are two different and distinct proceedings and therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case have no bearing in the departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that looking to the seriousness of the charges and more particularly in a disciplined force, this kind of conduct cannot be tolerated and the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority is required to be upheld by this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India has referred to and relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of (i) State of Punjab and Others vs. Mohinder Singh, 2005 12 SCC 182, and also (ii) in the case of General Manager, UCO Bank and Another vs. M. Venu Ranganath, 2007 13 SCC 251, and submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings operate in two different fields and there is no bar against initiation of disciplinary proceedings even if a person is acquitted in the criminal trial.