LILADHAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was a constable under the respondent -Police Department, was proceeded against under the charge sheet while he was posted at Barwadda Police Station in the district Dhanbad for having caused death of driver of a tanker bearing registration No. BHO -5830 by resorting to abuse and beating during course of patrolling on 15.09.2000.

(3.) THE ground for challenging as made are: - (I) the informant Tinku @ Md. Shamim during course of deposition in the departmental proceeding vide Annexure -3 did not support the charges even during cross examination. (II) that the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.12.2001 passed in S.T. No. 306 of 2001 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on the basis of no evidence. Despite the acquittal of the petitioner and the informant not supporting the charges, the enquiry officer held him guilty, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment. It is submitted that if the charges in a departmental and criminal proceeding are based upon similar set of facts and the delinquent employee has been acquitted by the concerned Trial Court, the Disciplinary Authority should have acted on the basis of the order of acquittal and not imposed punishment on the employee. In the circumstances as aforesaid, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt, M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported in : (1999) 3 SCC 679. It is submitted that since charges in the departmental proceeding remained unsubstantiated, therefore, no punishment should have been imposed.