KAILASH ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) A Jeep bearing No, BRD -7267, registered in the name of the wife of the petitioner was apprehended while in the said vehicle kattha was illegally being smuggled. Accordingly, the petitioner who was considered in the rank of Havildar in the Police Force was proceeded departmentally and a criminal case under Sections 414 and 413, Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act was also registered in which the petitioner was named and accused. It was established in the Departmental proceeding that the charged Havildar i.e the petitioner after purchasing the jeep in the name of his wife used to ply the same on hire and in the said jeep he had made a provision for carrying. The illegal 'kattha ' in most secret manner. After the charges were proved in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Lhe Superintendent of Police. Palamau considering the serious nature of charges against a member of the disciplined force, ordered for removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range. The appellate authority also after consideration of the entire material as well as the facts and circumstances of this case dismissed the appeal tiled by the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) IN my view. the proceeding before a criminal Court and a departmental proceeding are two separate and distinct proceeding. Even if a person is exonerated in the departmental proceeding, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be acquitted from the criminal charges. Similarly an accused in a criminal proceeding even if acquitted cannot take a plea that since he has been acquitted from the criminal charge, therefore, any order passed in the departmental proceeding against him shall become illegal or invalid.