DINESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar (Respondent No. 3) vide memo dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure -3) pertaining to dismissal from the services and the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. D.I.G., Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka (respondent No. 4) vide memo dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure -5) confirming the order passed and thereby, dismissing the appeal and for issuance of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal.

(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that for the self same charges, criminal case as well as departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -Cum -Special Judge, Deoghar under Ss. 376(2)(g), 120(B) & 201 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(X) S.C & S.T Prevention of Atrocities Act alongwith other accused persons. However, for the self same charges a disciplinary authority was also initiated proceeding against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and the inquiry officer furnished the report. Agreeing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissed from the services vide memo dated 17.11.2011. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority denying the entire allegations and also representing that the findings of the disciplinary authority are not in accordance with law. The appellate authority disagreed with the contention of the petitioner and agreeing with the findings of the disciplinary authority, dismissed the appeal vide memo dated 21.11.2012. On the same set of facts, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case whereas, dismissed in the departmental proceedings. Learned senior counsel further submits that the copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied moreover enquiry officer has travelled beyond the charges which is not permissible to travel beyond charges nor the inquiry officer can enquire into allegations in which delinquent officer has not been charged with. In support of the contentions, senior counsel has referred to decision as reported in : 2006 (4) SCC 713 and 2006 (5) SCC 25. Senior counsel further submits that on same and similar charges, one Gyanendra Yadav has given lesser punishment whereas the petitioner has subjected to discrimination and has been awarded major punishment of dismissal from the services.

(3.) Per -contra a counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 controverting the averments made in the writ applications. In the counter -affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the petitioner was posted as magazine guard at Police Centre, Deoghar, he was not on duty without prior permission and after escaping from the duty, an offence on the same day i.e. 31.08.2009 which gave rise to Deoghar P.S. Case No. 268/09 by registered under Sec. 376(2)g/120B/201 Indian Penal Code read with 3(X) of Prevention of Atrocities on Schedule Cast/Schedule Tribe Act and accordingly a Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner fled away and while absconding crime in Bhojpur District of Bihar State and arrested by the police which gave rise to Behiya P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010 registered under Sec. 307/504 Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 27 Arms Act. The petitioner suppressed aforesaid fact during the departmental proceeding and appeal where the petitioner was brought to Deoghar on remand from the judicial custody of Bhojpur District (Bihar) as per the remand vide Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit. The discipline and law and order is the back bone of Police force and the petitioner played role of law breaker whereas duty bound to perform role of law protector, thus, the disciplinary authority has rightly terminated the petitioner from services after following all procedure prescribed and the appellate authority after examining the case of the petitioner from all probable angles arrived at the final conclusion that the petitioner's termination was well in accordance with law, rule under circular. It has further been submitted that it is the settled principle of law that acquittal in criminal proceeding shall have no impact upon departmental proceeding both proceedings are separate in nature and ratio in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and GM tank case is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.