BADRI NARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this writ application is for an order directing the Respondents to pay the petitioner his salary and other dues from 13.09.1984 till date of his retirement on 13.12.2005, on the ground that denial of the salary for the aforesaid period, was totally illegal and unjustified on the part of the Respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 11.10.1965 and since the date of his appointment he had rendered his services at various Police Stations including Jaldega Police Station.

(3.) MR . B. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner simultaneously while the criminal trial was pending and the charges both in the criminal trial as well as in the departmental proceeding were one and the same. The departmental proceeding was conducted without enabling the petitioner an adequate and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry Report, nor was he served with any show cause notice in respect of the punishment proposed to be imposed against him. It is further submitted that in the departmental proceedings, there was no charge against the petitioner of misconduct or dereliction of duty and the only charge against him was that a criminal case was instituted and pending against him for certain serious offences. Learned counsel argues that since on the same set of charges the criminal proceeding was already pending, the departmental proceedings ought to have been kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel argues further that on the same set of evidence of the witnesses in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was ultimately found not guilty for the charges in respect of any of the offences, by the Appellate Court. As such, the evidences of the witnesses, which were identical in nature as deposed in the criminal proceedings, even if made in the departmental proceeding, cannot lead to any contrary view against the petitioner.