KOMAL TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .K. Katriar and Kishore K. Mandal, JJ. ''This appeal has been preferred in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. The writ petitioner (the appellant herein) is aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.1999, passed in Komal Tiwari V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 10197 of 1997 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of his dismissal from service as a Constable has been upheld. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was a Constable in the Bihar Police Force. He was involved in an occurrence which had taken place on 12/13.5.1993, and allegations had been levelled against him for impersonating as a member of an escort party assigned the duty of checking ticketless travellers. He was not a member of the escort party, but he was in police uniform without the badges, and was found extracting money from a ticketless traveller as well as ill -treating and beating him. Learned inquiry officer submitted his report, wherein the charges were found to have been proved, and he was consequently ordered to be dismissed from service. He preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the order dated 5.6.1995 (Annexure -3), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Patna. The petitioner 'sreview petition has also been rejected by the order dated 27.6.1997, passed by the Inspector General of Police (Rail), Patna. It is further stated therein that the order rejecting the review application was not communicated to the petitioner. 2.1) The petitioner had also been subjected to criminal proceedings on identical charges and has been acquitted by judgment dated 25.6.1997 (Annexure 4). 2.2) Aggrieved by the order of the departmental authorities, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid CWJC No. 10197 of 1997, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court leading to the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned action. He submits that the departmental authorities are not required to pass a detailed judgment which is not the requirement in law. The requirement of law is met if the departmental authority briefly indicates the reasons in support of the conclusion. He relies on the following judgments: '' (i) Arvind Kumar V/s. The Nalanda Gramin Bank through its Chairman & Ors., 2000 4 PLJR 837 (para 19) (ii) Vijay Shankar Kasaip V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 2003 4 PLJR 41 (para 42). 4.1) He next submits that the proceedings before the criminal court and the departmental authorities stand on fundamentally different footing and are parallel proceedings. He relies on the judgment Nelson Motis V/s. Union of India and Another, AIR 1992 SC 1981 (para 5).