Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State. 2. On the request of the parties, this writ application has been taken up for consideration. 3. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 582 dated 31.12.2018 issued under signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railways) contained in Annexure ‘10’ by which the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the final order of dismissal from Bihar Police as contained in Memo No. 739 dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure ‘8’) issued under signature of Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur has been rejected. The petitioner further prays for setting aside of the inquiry report contained in Memo No. 48 dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure ‘3’). He is also seeking quashing of the Charge Memo No. 106 dated 21.01.2017 (Annexure ‘4’) as well as the Final Order of dismissal contained in Memo No. 739 dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure ‘8’). Brief Facts of the Case 4. It appears that vide a charge memo contained in Memo No. 106 dated 21.01.2017, the petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding. Brief Facts of the Case 4. It appears that vide a charge memo contained in Memo No. 106 dated 21.01.2017, the petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding. The charge memo reads as under: – ^^vkjksi&izk:i jsy ftyk tekyiqj esa fuyfEcr goynkj 38 fnisUnz izlkn ;kno ds fo:} ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] drZO;ghurk] LosPNkpkfjrk] fofèk&fo:} dk;Z ,oa Hkz"V vkpj.k dk vkjksi yxk;k tkrk gS fd%& 1- fnukad 26-12-16 dks jsYk Fkkukè;{k] >k>k }kjk vkns'k i=k lañ&2589014 ds }kjk >k>k LVs'ku ls y[khljk; taD'ku rd tu'krkCnh ,Dliszl 12023 viñ esa LdkWV M~;wVh gsrq buds lkFk flikgh 511 vjfoUn dqekj] flikgh 108 f'koukFk rqjh ,oa flikgh@531 jkeiqdkj dqekj dks vkns'k i= fuxZr fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq flikgh@531 jkeiqdkj dqekj ds vpkud isV [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k LdkWV ugha fd;saA 2- fnukad 27-12-16 dks 'kjkc dkjksckfj;ksa ds fo:} izkIr xqIr lwpuk ds vkèkkj ij iqfyl voj fujh{kd fojsUnz ekW>h] ihñVhñlhñ@218 lR;sUnz dqekj flga] flikgh@504 'kadj dqekj ,oa flikgh@343 fjadw dqekj ds lkFk fo'ks"k jsM Nkikekjh dh dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh Fkh rks jsyos ;kMZ dh vksj 351 ikmp 'kjkc ds lkFk nks O;fDr;ksa dks fxjrkj fd;k x;kA 3- bl lacaèk esa iqñvñfuñ fcjsUnz ekW>h ds fyf[kr vkosnu ds vkèkkj ij jsy Fkkukè;{k] fdmy }kjk fdmy jsy Fkkuk dkaM lañ &247@16 fnukad 27-12-2016 èkkjk& 30¼38½@1 fcgkj e| fu"ks| ,oa mRikn vfèkfu;e] 2016 ds rgr ntZ djrs gq, vuqlaèkku dk Hkkj Lo;a xzg.k fd;k x;kA 4- dkaM esa fxjrkj izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr&1- 'kEHkw BBsjk mez&30 o"kZ isñ&vtqZu BBsjk] lkañ&lalkj iks[kj xkWèkh Vksyk] okMZ uañ&17] Fkkuk& doS;k] ftyk y[khljk; }kjk vijkèk LohdkjksfDr c;ku esa crk;k x;k fd fnukad&26-12-2016 dks vfHk;qDr ,oa buds nks lkFkh 1- lrh'k dqekj isñ cSfjLVj flag 2- ÁUVql dqekj isñ&uekywe nksuksa lkñ&ipuk jksM okMZ uañ&19] Fkkuk doS;k] ftyk y[khljk; ds lkFk tlhMhg ls tu'krkCnh ,Dl0 ls 'kjkc ysdj fdmy vk jgs Fks rks mDr xkM+h esa rSukr LdkWVZ ikVhZ ds flikgh tks rhu dh la[;k esa onhZ igus o MaMk fy;s gq, Fks] vkdj vfHk;qDr dh ryk'kh ,oa fiV~Bw cSx esa j[kk 'kjkc ds lkFk idM+ fy;s rFkk 4000@& ¼pkj gtkj½ :i;s dh ekWx djus yxs ijUrq :i;s ugha jgus ds dkj.k ugha fn;saA blh nkSjku tc Vsªu fdmy jsyos LVs'ku ij :d x;h rks ge rhuksa dks 'kjkc ds lkFk batu ds vkxs ls ys tkdj u;k rhu eatyk foYMhax tks ;kMZ ds ikl gS ogka ys x;k ,oa foYMhax ls lVs mÙkj esa cus rhu dejk ftlesa flikgh yksx jgrs gS ml dejk ls rhu flikgh lkns fyckl esa ckgj vk;sa ftlesa ,d flikgh tks lkèkkj.k dn dkBh mez nkjkt Fkk] rhuksa geyksxksa dk ryk'kh fy;k rFkk ge rhuksa ds ikl ls dqy&960 :i;k Fkk] tks ys fy;k ,oa cksyk fd rhuksa feykdj vHkh 7]000@&¼lkr gtkj½ :i;k nsxk rc eky NwVsxk vU;Fkk lqcg esa ds'k djds 'kjkc ds lkFk tsy Hkst nsaxs rFkk tks yEck] xsgw¡vk jax dk flikgh Fkk os ge rhuksa dk QksVksa Hkh eksckbZy ls ys fy;k rFkk rFkk cgqr vkjtq feUur djus ij cksyk fd Bhd gS lcsjs 06%00 cts rd 7]000@&¼lkr gtkj½ :i;k ysdj vkuk rc 'kjkc NwV tk,xkA nwljs fnu fnukad&27-12-2016 dks ge ,oa lrh'k dqekj feydj 7]000@&¼lkr gtkj½ :i;k ysdj vk;s rFkk tks meznjkt O;fDr Fkk muls feydj mudks dqy & 6600@& ¼fN;klB lkS½ :i;s fn;s rc os geyksxksa dks 'kjkc Hkjk rhuksa cSx tks u;k foYMhax esa fNikdj j[ks Fksa] fudkydj ns fn;s ,oa genksuksa mDr 'kjkc ysdj ;kMZ ds jkLrs y[khljk; dh vksj tk jgs Fksa rks fd ge nksuksa dks 'kjkc ds lkFk iqfyl ds }kjk idM+ fy;k x;kA 5- izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr 'kaHkw BBsjk ds LohdkjksfDr c;ku ij bl dkaM ds vuqlèkku ds Øe esa fdmy taD'ku ds IysViQkeZ lañ&04 ,oa 05 ds mÙkj esa vofLFkr jsyos ;kMZ ds cxy esa fuekZ.kkèkhu rhu eaftyk iSuy Hkou ds ikl igqWps vkSj cxy ds ifjR;dr Hkou ds rhu dejs esa jg jgs flikfg;ksa esa ls goynkj yyu jke }kjk mDr dkaM ds izkñ vfHkñ 'kaHkw BBsjk ls fy;k x;k uxn 66]000@&¼fN;klB lkS½ :i;s fnukad&27-12-2016 ds nksikgj djhc&14%45 cts izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftldh fofèkor~ izLrqrh lg tIrh&lwph cuk;h x;hA 6- mijksDr lanHkZ esa vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk Kkikad 1731@xksñ] fnukad 30-12-2016 ds ekè;e ls jsy iqfyl mikèkh{kd] fdmy ls tk¡p izfrosnu dh ekax dh x;h rnksijkUr jsy iqfyl mikèkh{kd] fdmy ds Kkikad 48@mikñ] fnukad 17-01-2017 ds ekè;e ls foLr`r tk¡p izfrosnu izkIr gS] ftlesa Hkh mijksDr vkjksiksa dh iqf"V gksrh gSA 7- tk¡p izfrosnu ds i`"B la[;k&07 ,oa 08 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd xkM+h la&12023 vi tu'krkCnh ,Dlñ ds LdksVZ fM;qVh esa rSukr dfeZ;ksa ds mDr Vsªu ds fdmy jsyos LVs'ku ij tkus ls igys ,oa ckn esa uo fufeZr iSuy Hkou ds ikl vofLFkr ifjr;Dr Hkou esa jgus okys flikfg;ksa ls fujarj nwjHkk"k ij okrkZyki gqbZ gS rks ihñVhñlhñ 383 fnus'k dqekj flag ds }kjk crk;s x;s eksckbZy uañ&7870770410 ds dkWy fooj.kh ds fo'ys"k.k ls izekf.kZr gSA rF;ksa ds foospu ls Li"V gS fd xkM+h lañ&12023 vi tu'krkCnh ,Dlñ LdksVZ fM;wVh esa rSukr dfeZ;ksa }kjk 'kjkc dkjksokfj;ksa dks idM+s tkus ij fofèk&lEer dkjZokbZ gsrq Fkkukè;{k dks lqiwnZ djus ds ctk; voSèk ykHk ,oa iSls dh voSèk mxkgh gsrq buds ,oa buds lkFk ds vU; dfeZ;ksa }kjk fdmy ds uo fufeZr iSuy Hkou esa jg jgs iqfyl dfeZ;ksa Øe'k% goynkj 11 yyu jke] flikgh 06 jktifr 'ks[kj ,oa ihñVhñlhñ 383 fnus'k dqekj flag dks lqiwnZ dj fn;k x;k rFkk buds ,oa lg;ksfx;ksa ds feyh Hkxr ls vfHk;qDr 1- 'kEHkw BBsjk] 2- lrh'k dqekj ,oa ÁUVql dqekj dks Hkxk fn;k x;k] tks buds fofèk fo:}] lafnXèk vkpj.k] Hkz"Vkpkj ,oa ,d v;ksX; iqfyl dehZ gksus dk ifjpk;d gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd iqfyl dfeZ;ksa ds }kjk fcgkj esa iw.kZ 'kjkc canh ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~ fyf[kr :i ls 'kiFk&i= nk;j fd;k x;k Fkk fd os dHkh Hkh 'kjkc dk lsou@'kjkc dh fcØh esa lgHkkxh ugha jgsaxsA fofèkr gS fd fcgkj esa iw.kZr% 'kjkccanh ykxw gS rFkk 'kjkc ihus@cukus ,oa ifjogu djus okyksa ij dBksj dkjZokbZ dk izkoèkku gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vkidk ;g vkpj.k iw.kZr% fofèk&fo:} gSA ,sls voSèk dk;ksZa ls vke turk esa iqfyl dh Nfo ?kwfey gksrh gS ,oa iqfyl dh dk;Z iz.kkyh ij iz'u&fpUg~ yxrk gSA mDr vkjksiksa ds fy, jsy ftykns'k lañ&1779@16 rRlacaèkh Kkikad 1732@xksñ fnukad&30-12-2016 ds }kjk bUgsa lkekU; thou&;kiu HkÙkk ij fuyafcr fd;k x;k gSA vr,o of.kZr vkjksiksa ds fy, fuyafcr goynkj 38 fnisUnz izlkn ;kno ds fo:} foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjaHk djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu jsy iqñ miñ tekyiqj djsaxsA** 5. In the disciplinary proceeding, ultimately vide Memo No. 739 dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure ‘8’ to the writ application), the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed vide order contained in Memo No. 582 dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure ‘10’) whereafter the petitioner filed a memorial before the Director General of Police which has been dismissed vide Memo No. 1197/451275 dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure ‘12’ to the interlocutory application). Submission of the Petitioner 7. While assailing the impugned orders, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that for identical charges Constable Rajpati Shekhar was also dismissed from service. He challenged his order of dismissal in this Court in CWJC No. 9512 of 2019. This Court having perused the entire records and taking note of the submissions of the parties held that not a single competent witness deposed in the inquiry and the facts forming part of the allegation against the petitioner in the Charge Memo could not be proved. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that instead of taking this Court through the facts of the case, he would request that the identical case having been allowed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, similar view be taken. Submission of the State 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 has not disputed, rather he admits that in identical case, the learned Coordinate Bench has allowed the writ application and the orders passed in the disciplinary proceeding have been quashed. Consideration 10. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-4 for the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the Constable Rajpati Shekhar was also served with a Memo of Charge dated 21.01.2017, he was dismissed from service and then his appeal was rejected by the competent authority. 11. The learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded in paragraphs ‘11’ to ‘13’ of the judgment as under: – “11. Shambhu Thathera and Yatish Kumar, however, have also not been examined in the proceedings. They were only two persons competent of deposing in respect of the occurrence alleged at the barrack. It is only these two persons who were competent to state about the petitioner’s presence, participation in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and subsequent release of the accused persons with the illicit consignment of liquor. 12. They were only two persons competent of deposing in respect of the occurrence alleged at the barrack. It is only these two persons who were competent to state about the petitioner’s presence, participation in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and subsequent release of the accused persons with the illicit consignment of liquor. 12. Reliance on the confessional statement of accused Shambhu Thathera, the allegations stated in the FIR, seizure of the alleged illegal gratification from Havildar Lalan Ram and statement of police officials/personnel in support of the factum of lodging of the FIR, recording of confessional statement of accused Shambhu Thathera, at best, are proof of the facts leading to lodging of the criminal case and not by any stretch of imagination sufficient to prove the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. and bring home the charges against the petitioner even on preponderance of probability. The documents forming part of the criminal investigation relied upon by the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered to be material to sustain charges in the departmental proceedings. Law to this effect by now settled as per decision in case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 13. The submission of the State counsel regarding procedure being followed and witnesses being examined, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. As noted above, not a single witness competent to depose in respect of any fact forming part of the allegation against the petitioner in the charge memo has been examined. All the witnesses, who have been examined, are, at best, witness to the lodging of the criminal case after the accused Shambhu Thathera had been apprehended in the Railway yard. The nine witnesses, who have been examined, are not witnesses to the events, prior to arrest of accused Shambhu Thathera, i.e. in the night of 26.12.2016 at the barrack or in the morning of 27.12.2016 when it is alleged that illegal gratification was demanded in presence of the petitioner, accepted and after accepting the illegal gratification the accused Shambhu Thathera and Yatish Kumar released along with consignment of illicit liquor. Even on preponderance of probability it cannot be concluded that based on depositions of these nine witnesses, or material forming part of the criminal investigation arising out of Kiul Rail P.S. Case No. 247 of 2016, the charges have been proved. ” 12. Even on preponderance of probability it cannot be concluded that based on depositions of these nine witnesses, or material forming part of the criminal investigation arising out of Kiul Rail P.S. Case No. 247 of 2016, the charges have been proved. ” 12. This Court has also been informed that the judgment in the case of Rajpati Shekhar has not been appealed against and it has already been implemented. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to GP-4 for the State have informed this Court that in case of this petitioner also neither Shambhu Thathera nor Yatish Kumar who are said to be the two competent witnesses deposed. 14. In the given circumstances, this case is found to be identically situated to that of Rajpati Shekhar, this Court sets aside the impugned orders and the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.