- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8th January, 2001 passed by the Commandant, 67 Battl., C.R.P.F. (Respondent No. 3), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service for charges of absent without leave and misconduct for the period between 5.5.2000 to 13.7.2000 (70 days) and also on the ground of helping petitioner's brother to get appointment in Bihar Police as Constable, for which he was arrested and prosecuted, The brief facts, giving rise to the present case, are as under:-- The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in C.R.P.F. on 7.9.1992 and for the purpose of settlement and solemnization of his own marriage, he applied for 60 days' leave from 6.3.2000 to 4.5.2000 before the Respondent No. 3 and he was accordingly, granted leave. After he proceeded on leave, his grandmother expired on 28th March, 2000 and as a result, his marriage was postponed by a month to be held on 21st May, 2000. According to the petitioner, he applied for extension of his leave by 30 days on 28.4.2000 by a registered letter to the Commandant, but he did not receive any reply. During this period, the petitioner accompanied his elder brother to Gumla for joining of his brother as a Constable in Bihar Police Home Guard and during physical verification and getting signature on some blank papers, the police officials arrested the petitioner and his elder brother and he was kept in custody from 25.9.2000 to 1.7.2000 (sic). Thereafter, he was released on bail on 1.7.2000 and when he reported for duty, he was refused to join his post and the petitioner was suspended from duty and for two charges i.e. (i) for unauthorized absence, and (ii) in respect of his arrest by the Police in respect of a criminal case filed against him for helping his brother in getting job as Police Constable by adopting illegal methods, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and thereafter, on the basis, of report submitted by the enquiry officer, he was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority on 8.1.2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated 16.10.2001 confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. It is the case of the petitioner that so far as unauthorized absence is concerned, he submitted valid reasons for not joining the duty on expiry of the leave. However, the Respondents did not consider the reasons explained by the petitioner and so far as the involvement in a criminal case is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been honourably acquitted by the court and therefore, the factum of acquittal is (sic)quired to be considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, who decided the appeal after the order of acquittal, passed by the Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the order of dismissal is a very harsh penalty, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner and more particularly in view of the fact that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in respect of the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the appellate authority did not consider the submissions made before it, in respect of acquittal by the criminal court, in its proper perspective. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:-- (i) In the case of Dilip Kumar De vs. The Punjab National Bank & Others, 1992 2 PLJR 57. (ii) In the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others, 2009 15 SCC 620. (iii) In the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others, 2004 2 JLJR 184. (iv) In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others, 1995 6 SCC 749. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Deo Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others, passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3154 of 1995. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are required to consider the factum of acquittal by a competent court and the findings recorded by the Court with regard to the charges levelled against him while dealing with the enquiry proceedings as well as the disciplinary proceedings, but in the instant case, despite honourable acquittal by the Court in a criminal case, the appellate authority, who decided the appeal subsequent to the order passed by the Court, did not consider the findings given in respect of the present petitioner while acquitting him in a criminal case. It is further submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is open for the High Court to interfere in a decision rendered by the disciplinary authority and pass an appropriate order with regard to the quantum of penalty. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the scope of judicial review permits the High Court to interfere and modify the order of penalty. It is submitted that this is a fit case, wherein, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case requires to be considered for reduction of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) As against that, learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India submitted that the petitioner was working with a disciplined force and looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with law. Likewise, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority also conducted the proceedings in accordance with law and all reasonable opportunity which was required to be afforded to the petitioner, was given to him and after careful consideration of the materials available with the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, the decision with regard to imposition of penalty of dismissal from service has been taken and therefore, no interference is called for, by this Court, while dealing with it, in the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the appellate authority did consider the submissions made by the petitioner that he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in a criminal case. However, the appellate authority while dealing with this submission came to the conclusion that the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution are two different and distinct proceedings and therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case have no bearing in the departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that looking to the seriousness of the charges and more particularly in a disciplined force, this kind of conduct cannot be tolerated and the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority is required to be upheld by this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India has referred to and relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of (i) State of Punjab and Others vs. Mohinder Singh, 2005 12 SCC 182, and also (ii) in the case of General Manager, UCO Bank and Another vs. M. Venu Ranganath, 2007 13 SCC 251, and submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings operate in two different fields and there is no bar against initiation of disciplinary proceedings even if a person is acquitted in the criminal trial.;