- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the penalty order dated 16.02.2001 and appellate order dated 06.03.2003. The brief facts of the case are that, on 04.02.1997 a First Information Report being Dhanbad PS. Case No. 66 of 1997 was registered. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 26.02.1997 and an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry report dated 11.08.2000 was submitted finding the charge against the petitioner proved. The penalty order dated 16.02.2001, dismissing the petitioner from service, was passed by Respondent No. 4 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 06.03.2003 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 stating as under: 11. "That it is also a fact that the petitioner was informed about the departmental proceeding but he deliberately did not appear in it, therefore, the departmental proceeding had to be conducted Ex-parte. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 finding the charge serious and grave passed an order dated 11.08.2000 and 16.02.2001 dismissing the petitioner from the service. 12. That it is further stated and submitted that a first information report being Dhanbad RS. Case No. 66/97, under Section 409 was instituted as against the petitioner who absconded and as a result his movable and immovable properties were attached. 13. That it is further stated and submitted that respondent No. 2 by an order dated 6.3.2003 has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by reasoned order. 14. That it is further stated and submitted that yardstick or mode of proof in both departmental and criminal proceeding are different. In the former, the rule of probabilities are taken into account, while in the later the concept "beyond all reasonable doubt" is considered. Hence the finding of one does not affect the finding of other. Further pendency of criminal case is not impediment under the law and proceed in departmental proceeding. 15. That it is also important to mention here that as per Police Manual Rule Part-3, page-49, a para 10 clearly says that if the delinquent is absconder, it shall not be an impediment in the departmental proceeding.
(3.) When the matter was listed on 30.08.2013, the following order was passed, Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instruction whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dealt with by Deputy Inspector General of Police and order dated 06.03.2003 has been passed by the same Deputy Inspector General of Police or by the Director General of Police. Call the matter on 13.09.2013.;