Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 92 (PAT)

Krishna Nana San v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-24

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2006
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, whereby and whereunder he has been reverted from the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police to the post of Constable for one year and, further, that he would not get any other amount except the subsistence allowance, which has been paid to him during the suspension period. 2. It appears that the petitioner was also involved in a criminal case and for same charge a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. He has been acquitted in the criminal case, but the impugned order has been passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the aforementioned punishment. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence at all against this petitioner and none has come to support the charge, yet the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment. He further submitted that the charges in the departmental proceeding are same as in the criminal case and, in fact, the departmental proceeding has been initiated because of criminal charges, in which case law is that if a person is acquitted on the ground that the case against the accused is not proved, the delinquent cannot be subjected to punishment of dismissal on the same charge. In support of this, he referred to a decision of the Ranchi Bench of this Court (as it then stood) in the case of Javed Shoukat vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(2) PLJR 552 . 4. However, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has filed appeal before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2) against the impugned order and the same is still pending. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the sole ground of availing of alternative remedy. 5. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 15.1.2005 was received in the office of the appellate authority, namely, respondent no. 2, on 11.2.2005, yet the same has not been disposed of now for almost one long year. 6. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the writ application is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2, on 11.2.2005, yet the same has not been disposed of now for almost one long year. 6. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the writ application is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the appeal and dispose it of within a fortnight of the receipt/production of a copy of this order keeping in view the principle decided by the Ranchi Bench of this Court (as it then stood), referred to above.