- (1.) ON the basis of the charges levelled against the appellant, a Constable, disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal. Challenging the same, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which affirmed the same. Again aggrieved by that, the appellant filed revision before the D.G.P., Government of Jharkhand, who, in turn, dismissed the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge, while considering the point raised by the appellant, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities; hence this appeal.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant would mainly contend on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in (Ram Pravesh Pandit and Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)), which has been rendered on the strength of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 769 that the appellant has been acquitted in respect of the same charge and as such, the finding given by the disciplinary authority, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority holding that the charges have been proved is unjust and the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the respondents, while justifying the impugned order and referring the authority AIR 2006 SC 1800 (Commissioner Of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh) submits that the enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority is entirely different from the criminal case. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority gave a finding that the charges have been proved on 16.4.2002 itself and on the other hand, the order of acquittal has been passed by the criminal court only on 29.4.2003.
(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.;