D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order for quashing th order dated 16.02.2003 (Annexure -4) passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the disciplinary authority has recorded a punishment against the petitioner dismissing him from service on the ground that the charges framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, were proved against him. Prayer also is for quashing the order dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure -5) passed by the appellate authority whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the disciplinary authority has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 08.04.2004 (Annexure -7) passed by the revisional authority whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as also of the appellate authority, was dismissed. The petitioner was employed as a Constable in the Police Service and was posted in the district of West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a charge that he had indulged in acts of gross misconduct, to wit, assaulted a colleague resulting in the death of the victim. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice to explain. Availing the opportunity, he had submitted his show cause replies. However, not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. It also appears that for the same occurrence a separate criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the criminal court and the petitioner had faced trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial, however ended with the petitioner's acquittal and as it appears from the judgement passed by the trial court, the petitioner was acquitted on the ground of lack of evidence. In the disciplinary proceeding however, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and on the basis of such findings of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority recorded the order of punishment as mentioned above.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of his punishment as also the order passed by the appellate and revisional authorities, counsel for the petitioner argues that the disciplinary authority has failed to consider that for the same charges, on which the departmental proceeding was initiated, a separate criminal trial was also initiated against the petitioner and in both the proceedings, the witnesses were almost the same. Learned Counsel submits further that the findings of the Inquiry Officer is also perverse in view of the fact that the inferences drawn and the findings recorded were based entirely on the preliminary inquiry which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of some observations and opinion of the Dy.S.P. It is further informed that at the criminal trial, though the prosecution had projected one eye witness but the witness had failed to support the prosecution case in toto and in absence of any further evidence, cogent and reliable, the petitioner was acquitted and such acquittal has to be deemed as a honourable acquittal. Learned Counsel argues further that the fact that in the criminal prosecution the petitioner had obtained his acquittal, had a definite bearing on the departmental proceeding and the benefit thereof has not been given to the petitioner.;