RAMJI SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred against the order-dated 28.8.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011, by which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and learned Single Judge declined to set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal. The appellant-Ramji Singh, who was the Police Constable, was suspended by letter dated 10.2.2004 w.e.f. 5.2.2004 on the criminal charges that he fired one round from his own rifle and abused one Sub-Inspector Shivlal Tudu in drunken state and an FIR in Daltonganj PS Case No. 7 of 2004 has been lodged against the appellant under Sections 307, 353, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was finally acquitted by the judgment dated 13.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Daltonganj vide Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2005.

(2.) For the similar charges, a Departmental Proceeding No. 50 of 2004 was initiated against the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that without affording sufficient opportunity and without properly conducting the departmental proceeding the appellant was terminated from services vide order dated 10.4.2006 bearing memo No. 368/Confidential. The appellant filed appeal against the order passed in the departmental proceeding and the appellate authority-DIG of Police (Rail), Jharkhand upheld the order of dismissal by order dated 7.9.2009 holding that the charges leveled against the appellant is fully proved.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of termination from services and also the rejection of the appeal, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 28.8.2012, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the sessions case ended in acquittal, since none of the prosecution witnesses had appeared before the Sessions Court and simply because the appellant was acquitted by the criminal court is not a ground to set aside the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the appellant was awarded eight penalties on different occasions and that the appellant is not fit to be reinstated in the disciplinary force.