TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of dismissal dated 27.4.1996 passed by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure 12. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 11.10.1996 which is contained in Annexure 14 and which has been passed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 4) rejecting the appeal and upholding the order dated 27.4.1996. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 20.1.1998 as contained in Annexure 17 and which has been passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police) rejecting the Memorial filed by the petitioner.
(2.) MR . H. Waris, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very short point in this case. He firstly drew attention of this Court to Annexure 9/1 which is the Enquiry Report and submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, by Annexure 10 the petitioner was reinstated in service but his suspension was not revoked. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh application vide Annexure 11 wherein he prayed that the order of suspension be revoked as he had not been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. Instead of considering the case of the petitioner, the authorities passed an order on 27.4.1996 being D.O. No. 824/96 (Annexure 12) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from service. From a perusal of the impugned order of dismissal, it appears that the respondents assigned reasons which, in the opinion of the Court, was not included in the charge -sheet. It is relevant to mention that by Annexure 9/1, the Enquiry Officer did not find him guilty. Moreover, the petitioner was acquitted in the two criminal cases that were pending against him. The charge -sheet that was issued was absolutely vague and it is contained in Annexure 1. The charge against the petitioner was that since he was involved in Panki PS Case No. 12/84 under Sec.395, Indian Penal Code and Panki PS Case No. 14/85 under Sec.379/411, Indian Penal Code and since charge -sheets were submitted against him, the same proved that the petitioner was a person of criminal nature. In Annexure 9/1, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that in Panki PS Case No. 12/85 under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code, the petitioner and all other accused persons had not been found guilty and so far as Panki PS Case No. 14/ 85 under Sec.379/411 is concerned, the same related to theft valued at Rs. 50.00 but the only thing against the petitioner was that charge -sheets were submitted against him. However, the Enquiry Officer gave a specific finding that the charge to the effect that he was a person of criminal nature, could not be proved.
(3.) THE dismissal order, on the other hand, proceeds to record that prior to his appointment, the petitioner was an accused in these two cases in which charge -sheets had been submitted and therefore, the charge that the petitioner was a person of criminal nature was established. The dismissal order also records that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner in collusion with the complainant/informant entered into a compromise as a result of which the case could not be decided on merits. On the basis of the aforementioned reasonings, the disciplinary passed an order of dismissal.;