JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 26.5.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1464, this writ petition has been filed. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 23.5.2016, by which, the appellate authority has upheld the order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner was a constable in Jharkhand Police. While he was in service, a complaint dated 8.11.2014 was filed by one Shanti Devi (Oraon) before the Superintendent of Police, Khunti, stating therein that this petitioner is her husband and the marriage was solemnized prior to the petitioner's appointment i.e. 30.4.2006. It is further alleged that after the petitioner got employment in the year 2009, he married for the second time, during subsistence of earlier marriage and kept the lady along with him. It is also stated that she is not being looked after by the petitioner and she was being tortured by this petitioner. Along with the complaint, an application was filed by her before the concerned court annexing the copy of warrant of arrest and the processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said complaint, notices to show cause were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was departmentally proceeded in Departmental Proceeding No. 25/2014. The memo of charge was served to the petitioner vide Memo No. 2690 dated 19.11.2014 and as per the said charge-sheet, the charges levelled against the petitioner are; (i) the petitioner tortured his wife i.e. Shanti Devi and (ii) the petitioner solemnized second marriage during life time of his first wife without taking permission from the higher authority. It is also mentioned that the aforesaid two acts on the part of the petitioner, being a police official, amount to misconduct and the same reflects indiscipline attitude of the petitioner. As per the said charge-sheet, there were three witnesses. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the departmental proceeding, submitted the enquiry report. Thereafter second show cause notice was issued. Considering the report and reply, the petitioner was dismissed from his service vide impugned order dated 26.5.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1310. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide 23.5.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1464. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is absolutely perverse and against the materials on record. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide 23.5.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1464. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is absolutely perverse and against the materials on record. He further submits that the charges were not proved and without proving the charges, punishment was inflicted which is also absolutely bad. He further submits that the appellate authority also without considering the materials on record has upheld the order of punishment. He further submits that act of the petitioner cannot be termed as a misconduct. 4. Counsel for the State submits that a proper departmental proceeding was initiated and in the said departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty of torturing of his wife. After going through the inquiry report and after following the procedure, the petitioner has been dismissed from his service. He also submits that the appellate authority, concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority upheld the order of dismissal of the petitioner. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. I find that the petitioner was charge-sheeted departmentally. The charges against the petitioner are that (i) he tortured his wife and (ii) he solemnized his second marriage during life time of his first wife without taking permission of the higher authority. The Enquiry Officer conducting the departmental proceeding, submitted the enquiry report, which is on record as Annexure-6 to this petition. From the enquiry report and other records, I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner married second time during life time of his first wife. The enquiry officer also held that this charge is not proved and the petitioner is not guilty. Thus, one of the charges, which has been levelled against the petitioner is not proved. 7. So far charge with regard to torture meted upon his wife is concerned, surprisingly, the wife who was one of the witnesses in the departmental proceeding was not examined. The only material is the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance and on that basis, the inquiry officer arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has not maintained his wife properly. It is pertinent to mention herein that the wife had filed a criminal case being Case No. C-97/2010 in the court of learned SDJM, Lohardaga under Section 498A IPC. It is pertinent to mention herein that the wife had filed a criminal case being Case No. C-97/2010 in the court of learned SDJM, Lohardaga under Section 498A IPC. Vide order dated 7.2.2015, I find that the case against the petitioner was dropped and he was discharged. The said order is also on record. Even the said order dated 7.2.2015 suggests that the petitioner was not even charged in the said criminal case. Thus the allegation of torture is not substantiated. Whether this act of alleged torture by the delinquent can be misconduct under the Service Rule has not been substantiated by the State. The respondent authorities have brought nothing on record in support of such claim. As mentioned earlier, the charge of harassment and torture is not substantiated before the criminal court. The entire report of the Enquiry Officer does not suggest as to what is the nature of torture meted upon the complainant by the petitioner. Only on the basis of an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Magistrate and only upon filing of a complaint under Section 498-A, the petitioner has been punished by the department holding him guilty of misconduct. Thus, the material upon which the respondent authorities have relied upon, is not sufficient to substantiate the petitioner guilty in the departmental proceeding. There is no substantive material to punish the petitioner. Since there is no material in the departmental proceeding sufficient to punish him, the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from his service dated 26.5.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1310 and the appellate order dated 23.5.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1464 are absolutely bad and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order of removal of the petitioner from his service dated 26.5.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1310 and the appellate order dated 23.5.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1464 are quashed. 9. So far as payment of back wages is concerned, in the entire petition, the petitioner has not pleaded that the petitioner was not gainfully employed at any time after dismissal from his service. It is well settled that the petitioner had to first plead that he was not gainfully employed, but the same has not been done by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. It is well settled that the petitioner had to first plead that he was not gainfully employed, but the same has not been done by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee (Smt.) reported in (2003) 6 SCC 141 has held that the payment of full back wages of an employee is not the natural consequence of an order of dismissal being set aside. Since the petitioner has failed to discharge his duty by pleading that he was not gainfully employed, I am not inclined to grant any back wages to the petitioner. 10. Thus, I direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner within three weeks from today without any back wages, failing which, he will be entitled for payment of wages on expiry of three weeks. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.