Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 11 (JHR)

Chaitan Soren v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-10

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Head the parties finally. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal passed in the departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority being orders dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure-1), 2.7.1996 (Annexure-2) and 12.12.1997 (Annexure-3). 3. The petitioner was charged of escaping from his duty from 7.30 p.m. on 2.6.1989 without permission. The further charge was that about 30-35 villagers brought the petitioner in drunken condition at 1 a.m. in the same night total that petitioner trespassed into the house of Hurni Devi and caught her hand with bad intention, due to which she awoke and raised alarm. On the fardbeyan of Hurni Devi, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 61/1989, dated 3.6.1989 was registered under Section 448/354, IPC, in which charge-sheet was submitted. On notice, petitioner filed his show cause. The charges were of dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, due to which the image of police department was tarnished. On petitioners request, the said departmental proceeding No. 32/1989 was stayed in May, 1992 by the Superintendent of Police till disposal of the criminal case. Petitioner was acquitted in the said Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 61/1989 by the judgment dated 19.9.1992. But he produced a copy of the judgment before the police only on 26.8.1993 and prayed for exonerating him in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, six witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix-Hurni Devi but petitioner did not cross-examine her. Hence she was discharged. Petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the same, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 20.10.1995. Petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 2.7.1996. Petitioner filed revision. The revisional authority after considering the points raised by the petitioner and reply given by the department, dismissed the revision petition by order dated 12.12.1997. 4. Petitioners defence was that on 2.6.1989, he went to attend the call of nature after informing one Jamadar. While returning, he found 7-8 persons were planning to commit crime. Petitioner challenged them. They caught the petitioner and poured liquor forcefully in his mouth and brought him at the police guard at about 1 a.m. in the night. 4. Petitioners defence was that on 2.6.1989, he went to attend the call of nature after informing one Jamadar. While returning, he found 7-8 persons were planning to commit crime. Petitioner challenged them. They caught the petitioner and poured liquor forcefully in his mouth and brought him at the police guard at about 1 a.m. in the night. The entire story was made with the connivance of the lady of easy virtue. Thus, practically he admitted the charges. 5. It cannot be accepted that the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal case were same. In the departmental proceeding, the first charge was of escaping from duty without permission which was not part of the criminal case. Regarding the charge of outraging modesty of Hurni Devi, the petitioner was found guilty and accordingly charge-sheet was submitted. She was also examined by the enquiry officer along with five other witnesses. But it is not known why nobody turned up during the trial. Petitioner was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution did not produce even a single witness in the period of about one year in spit of sufficient opportunity and even the informant did not turn up. The charge that due to such action of the petitioner, the image of the police is tarnished was also not the subject matter of the criminal case. It is settled principles of law that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding and in criminal case are different. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental proceeding, the findings are to be recorded on the basis of preponderance of the probabilities. In the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that as petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, he could not be punished in the departmental proceeding. 6. In view of the pleadings and the materials brought on the record, it is not possible to accept that petitioner had no knowledge of the departmental proceeding or that several irregularities were committed in the departmental proceeding including the violation of principles of natural justice. Nothing has been brought on record to show any motive or ulterior intention of the disciplinary authority in passing the order, of dismissal against the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, the punishment of dismissal also cannot be said to be disproportionate. Nothing has been brought on record to show any motive or ulterior intention of the disciplinary authority in passing the order, of dismissal against the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, the punishment of dismissal also cannot be said to be disproportionate. The scope of interference in such matters under the writ jurisdiction is limited. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.