JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.06.2014, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner dated 15.12.2011 has been dismissed by respondent No. 2. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by respondent No. 4 has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20.12.2010 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of constable bearing number 1247 in departmental proceeding No. 103/2007 initiated against him on the charges levelled in charge sheet dated 14.06.2007 contained in memo number 1427 issued against the petitioner. 4. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by the respondent department on 14.06.2007 wherein it was alleged that while he was posted on deputation at Allahabad Bank, Dhanbad as guard, he was absent from the duty on 03.02.2006 from 13.30 hrs. to 20.30 hrs. and again on 05.02.2006 from 10.20 hrs. to 20.30 hrs. and thereafter on 06.02.2006 from morning 6 hrs. to 14.20 hrs. It was further alleged that in the meantime, his wife was found missing from the house and a Sanha regarding the same was registered on 04.02.2006 by the petitioner. On 9.02.2006, the dead body of an unknown woman was found and accordingly U.D. Case No. 3/2006 dated 9.02.2006 was registered and subsequently F.I.R. was instituted as Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 109/2006 dated 12.02.2006 under Sections 302/201 IPC against unknown. He submits that subsequently unknown dead body was identified as that of the wife of the petitioner and it was alleged that the petitioner had committed murder of his wife. The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2006 and sent to jail and was suspended on 05.09.2006. 5. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of aforesaid facts, it was alleged that the petitioner was of a criminal character and has committed murder of his wife and threw the dead body in a well and that he has committed this crime by remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty which has tarnished the image of the police and departmental proceeding was initiated. 6. 6. Learned counsel submits that ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.2010 and an appeal was filed against the order of dismissal and the appeal was also dismissed on 07.05.2011. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that after dismissal of the appeal, the criminal case regarding murder of his wife was decided and the petitioner was acquitted from the alleged offence vide judgment dated 13.12.2012 in Sessions Trial No.145/2007. He submits that by this time, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed and accordingly the petitioner filed a revision application before the respondent No. 2, but the same was dismissed on the ground that there was no provision for revision. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging his order of dismissal, the appellate order as well as the order refusing to entertain the revision application. He submits that charge regarding murder of his wife does not survive any longer and what remains is charge of unauthorised absence from duty. He submits that as the major part of the charge regarding murder of his wife does not survive any longer, the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority to consider the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case as the same may have effect on the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner as what survives is only unauthorised absence from duty for a few hours on three days. 8. He submits that in the view of the acquittal of the petitioner after decision of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a revision petition bringing this fact to the knowledge of the concerned respondent, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. 9. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the revision has not been entertained on account of the fact that there was no provision for revision and there is no illegality as such so far as impugned order declining to entertain the revision application is concerned. 10. However, he submits that the appeal having been decided prior to decision of the criminal case wherein the petitioner has been acquitted, there had been no occasion for the appellate authority to consider this aspect of the matter. 10. However, he submits that the appeal having been decided prior to decision of the criminal case wherein the petitioner has been acquitted, there had been no occasion for the appellate authority to consider this aspect of the matter. He also submits that so far as unauthorised absence from duty is concerned, he is not contesting the same, but mere unauthorised absence from duty may call for a different punishment. He further submits that punishment imposed in the present case is on the basis of absence from duty and also committing murder of his wife. Learned counsel submits that the matter can be remanded back to the appellate authority for considering this aspect of the matter, as the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case of murder of his wife only on 13.12.2012. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-state on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed in the present case mentioning that acquittal of an incumbent in the criminal case has no bearing in departmental proceeding and accordingly the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no relevance. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that in the departmental proceedings the petitioner was alleged to have committed murder of his wife and the allegation continued to exist even till decision of the appeal in the departmental proceeding on 07.05.2011. She also does not dispute the fact that the issue as to whether the petitioner had committed murder of his wife or not was to be essentially decided by the criminal court and not in the departmental proceeding. She however submits that unauthorised absence from duty has been established in the departmental proceeding and accordingly the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is justified. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has not been honourably acquitted, rather he has been given the benefit of doubt. She submits that the rule of evidence is not applicable and the concept of preponderance of probabilities is taken into consideration in the departmental proceeding, while in criminal proceeding, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. She submits that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 12. She submits that the rule of evidence is not applicable and the concept of preponderance of probabilities is taken into consideration in the departmental proceeding, while in criminal proceeding, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. She submits that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parries this court finds that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner initiating departmental proceeding on 14.06.2007 wherein the petitioner was charged with unauthorized absence from duty on 03.02.2006, 5.02.2006 and 06.02.2006 for the period from 13.30 to 20.30 hrs.; 10.20 to 20.30 hrs. and 6 A.M. to 14.20 hrs. respectively. It was alleged that the petitioner absented himself from duty to commit murder of his wife and threw her dead body in a well and lodged one Sanha No. 92 dated 04.02.2006 with Saraidhela Police Station that his wife was missing and after investigation the petitioner was charge sheeted in the criminal case and was arrested on 02.09.2006 and was subsequently suspended from duty. This conduct of the petitioner tarnished the image of the police. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner faced the trial in connection with murder of his wife which was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 145/2007 and was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 13.12.2012. The judgment of acquittal clearly indicates the reason of acquittal of the petitioner being lack of proper investigation by the Investigating Officer and the chain of circumstances could not be completed and it was found that reasonable doubt was created regarding involvement of the petitioner in murder of his wife and that the prosecution could not bring trustworthy reliable and clinching evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The petitioner was extended the benefit of doubt. 14. Absence from duty as alleged in the charge-sheet stood proved before the departmental proceedings and the same has not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been dismissed considering absence from duty as well as the charge of murder of his wife, but the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted in the criminal case. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been dismissed considering absence from duty as well as the charge of murder of his wife, but the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted in the criminal case. It is not in dispute that on the date of dismissal i.e. on 20.12.2010 and on the date of dismissal of the appeal, i.e. on 07.05.2011 the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case on 13.12.2012. 15. This court is of the considered view that the impugned order of dismissal has taken into consideration not only the allegation of absence from duty but also allegation regarding murder of the wife of the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that the murder of the wife of the petitioner was required to be decided only in the criminal case and not in the departmental proceeding as the same has nothing to do with regards to discharge of his official duty. On account of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case regarding murder of his wife by judgment dated 13.12.2012, what remains is only unauthorized absence from duty. This aspect of the matter is required to be considered by the appellate authority as it may have a bearing on the quantum of punishment. 16. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 07.05.2011 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for limited consideration on the point of quantum of punishment on account of the subsequent development of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case relating to murder of his wife and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is made clear that the unauthorised absence from duty is not in dispute in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority (Respondent no. 3) within a period of one month from today along with a copy of this order and file appropriate representation. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the appellate authority shall fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order in the light of this judgment on the quantum of punishment of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It will be open to the Respondent no. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the appellate authority shall fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order in the light of this judgment on the quantum of punishment of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It will be open to the Respondent no. 3 to take into account all the provisions of law while imposing punishment upon the petitioner and this court has not expressed any opinion with regards to quantum of punishment which can be imposed upon the petitioner on account of his unauthorised absence from duty. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.