Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER has been imposed with punishment of reduction to the minimum of the Grade i.e. existing grade S -9 Rs. 11,400/ - 3% - Rs. 19,350/ - to Rs. 11,400/ - with immediate effect by the impugned order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure -5) passed by the Deputy General manager (Mech -CRM). This punishment order is passed as a result of finding of guilt arrived at in respect of theft of property of the company namely, binding wire with contact set of Siemens make alleged to have been stolen by him on 16.01.2006 and seized at around 16.40 hrs by the personnel of Central Industrial Security Force red -handed from the petitioner. Anneuxre -1 is the charge sheet dated 14.03.2006. Petitioner also faced criminal prosecution arising out of the same allegation of theft and possession of stolen property under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 63/2006. Learned Trial Court acquitted him of the charges of theft under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but found him guilty under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code of possession of stolen property. In Criminal Appeal No. 52/2008 preferred by the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bokaro vide judgment dated 16.11.2009, acquitted him of the remaining charges under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code as well. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that for the same set of allegations with the same material evidence and prosecution witnesses when the criminal trial has ended in his acquittal, the departmental proceeding in prosecution of the same charge and by the same witnesses, have erroneously held him guilty and inflicted him with the impugned punishment.
(3.) IT is urged that when the Prosecution Witnesses i.e. PW -1 Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, PW -2 Subhash Chandra Bhuiyan, PW -3 Sacchidanand Palai who were intricately involved in the process of alleged seizure of the property and PW -4 Rajniti Singh being the witness to the property certificate of the employer BSL, have failed to establish the charges despite adequate opportunity before the Trial Court, statements of such witnesses taken in the departmental inquiry, could not be made the sole basis for establishing the charge of theft when other corroborative evidences are lacking to substantiate the said charges. It is urged that if that be so, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others [ : (2006) 5 SCC 446] squarely applies to the facts of the present case which deals with the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding as well on an acquittal in a criminal case of same charges with same set of evidence.;