Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 267 (JHR)

Ratnesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 648(A) dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure-14) whereby, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3692 of 2004, after considering the materials on record, affirmed the earlier order dismissing the petitioner from services as Police Constable. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner who was appointed as a Police Constable, was departmentally proceeded for the charge that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he came in civil dress and started abusing the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Police. Tata Nagar by uttering words "Chamar" and he also tried to tear the Station Diary kept on the table of the Munshi and he threw the telephone set on the ground. For the same allegations, an FIR was also registered for committing offence under Sections 385, 352, 506, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner. 4. The enquiry officer, after concluding the departmental enquiry, held that the charges against the petitioner was established and thereby the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report, punished the petitioner by dismissing him from service. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal against the order of dismissal from the service before the Deputy inspector General, Railway, which was also dismissed by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. Subsequently, the trial Court, by judgment dated 26.9.2006 passed in S.T. No. 315 of 2004, acquitted the petitioner from the charges. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3692 of 2004 challenging the order for dismissal from services on various grounds. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 18.4.2007 (Annexure-11). From perusal of the aforesaid order dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure-11), it appears that the learned single Judge, after considering the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, thought it proper to remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration and he gave liberty to the petitioner to make representation along with copy of judgment of acquittal before the disciplinary authority to pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation. Pursuant thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Jamshedpur, passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-14 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujrat and Ors. the order of dismissal passed in the departmental proceedings cannot be sustained after the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court. 7. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the concerned respondents and it has been submitted that merely acquittal in criminal case does not have effect of nullifying the decision taken in the departmental proceedings. They operate in different areas of considerations. In support of such submissions, he has relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court passed in the case of Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C. v. Kadarbhai J. Suthar reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 196 (SC). 8. After hearing the parties and after perusing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-14, I find that the Superintendent of Police, Railway has considered the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that the witnesses examined during trial were declared hostile, as they did not support the prosecution case whereas, in the departmental proceedings, the witnesses fully supported allegations/charges against the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry officer found the charges established against the petitioner. 9. The Supreme Court, in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. has held that if the departmental proceeding in a criminal case is based on similar and identical set of facts and charge as before the Criminal Court and are one and the same and in case there is no iota of evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty, then in that case, the dismissal of a person after the departmental enquiry cannot be sustained if it is found that the facts and evidence in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings were exactly the same. 10. But in the present case, we find that the evidence in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal trial were not the same. 10. But in the present case, we find that the evidence in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal trial were not the same. As a matter of fact, in the criminal trial, the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile whereas, in the departmental proceedings, the witnesses supported the charge and thereby, the charges were established against the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) is not applicable in the present case rather the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C. (supra) wherein it has been held that merely acquittal in the criminal case does not have effect of nullifying the decision taken in the departmental proceeding because they operate in different areas of considerations is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In the impugned order, the Superintendent Police, after fully complying the order and direction of this Court passed in WP.(S) No. 3692 of 2004 has considered in details the evidence and materials on record and thereafter, has come to the finding that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service after the charges against him was proved. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.