JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. I.A No.6390 of 2024 I.A No.6390 of 2024 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 57 days in filing L.P.A No.301 of 2024. 2. The learned counsel for the State has raised no objection to the same. 3. With the consent of the parties and considering the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 57 days in filing L.P.A No.301 of 2024 is hereby condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A No.6390 of 2024 is allowed. PRAYER 5. The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9th February 2024 passed in W.P(S) No.1636 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service. Factual Matrix 6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under: The petitioner was appointed in Ranchi District Force as Constable on 26.03.2009 and he was allotted Constable No.1864. He was proceeded departmentally by framing memo of charge on 20.12.2018. The charge against the petitioner is that on 8.12.2018 in the evening at 6.00 pm, he along with others went to medical store, namely, ‘Life Plus Medical Store’ and demanded a cough syrup. In the meanwhile, two more police personnel in police uniform and one person in civil dress came and disclosed to the staff of the said medical store that they are from Narcotics Department. They told that the shop was selling duplicate medicines and, therefore, the staff should call the owner of the shop. All the persons were identified to be the police personnel in the footage of camera installed in the shop. In this way, Rs. 30,000/- was cheated, which led to lodging of FIR, being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 dated 8.12.2018 for the offence under sections 452, 420, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge further shows that in this way, the image of Ranchi Police was tarnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the enquiry officer-cum-Assistant Superintendent of Police. The petitioner denied the charges so alleged. The charge further shows that in this way, the image of Ranchi Police was tarnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the enquiry officer-cum-Assistant Superintendent of Police. The petitioner denied the charges so alleged. The defence taken is that the petitioners went to the said medical store to purchase medicine, but some altercations took place between the staff of the medical store and the petitioner and therefore, a concocted and manufactured story was cooked up, which led to lodging of the FIR and the departmental proceeding. Altogether four witnesses were examined during the departmental proceeding, namely, Ajit Kumar Vimal Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kotwali, Jay Prakash Paswan, Assistant SubInspector, Police Kendra, Ranchi, Vinay Yadav, Gopneeya Pravachak and Sanjay Kumar, Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge, Sukhdeonagar Police Station. The informant Avinash Kumar Singh was not examined in the departmental proceeding, but he tendered his written statement to the enquiry officer. The petitioner has pleaded that all these witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner. Even the date on which they were examined is also not known to the petitioner. Even the written statement of the complainant Avinash Kumar Singh who said to be tendered his written statements, the copy of the same was not supplied to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses including Avinash Kumar Singh. After conclusion of the enquiry, the report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 31.5.2019 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges. The petitioner was issued notice of proposed penalty of major punishment. Such notice was issued by memo no. 5774 dated 03.07.2019. In turn, the petitioner submitted reply on 10.07.2019. Ultimately, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on 30.8.2019 with the direction that the petitioner would not be entitled to get anything than what was paid to them during the period of suspension. The petitioner preferred his appeal which came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi on 27.04.2020. The memorial/revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the same also resulted with same fate as it was rejected on 28.12.2020. 7. The petitioner preferred his appeal which came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi on 27.04.2020. The memorial/revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the same also resulted with same fate as it was rejected on 28.12.2020. 7. It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner while working as Constable has been proceeded departmentally on the basis of institution of one FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 dated 08.12.2018 registered under sections 452, 420, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant-writ petitioner was directed to participate in the enquiry before the enquiry officer. The appellant-writ petitioner denied the allegation. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has found the charges proved and based upon the same, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as also by revisional authority vide orders dated 27.04.2020 and 28.12.2020 respectively. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said orders passed by the administrative authorities at different stages, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1636 of 2021. The learned writ court has refused to interfere with the impugned orders on the observation given to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the acquittal in criminal case cannot be said to be clean acquittal. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of learned writ Court, has preferred the instant appeal. Argument by the learned counsel for the appellant: 8. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the identical issue of co-delinquent employee, namely, Krishna Mohan Singh, has been decided by this Court by a detailed reasoned order vide judgment dated 7th August 2024 passed in L.P.A No.275 of 2024. A copy of the said judgment has been supplied to Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the State. Argument of Learned counsel for the respondents: 9. Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned State counsel is fair enough to submit that the similar issue has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 7th August 2024 in L.P.A No.275 of 2024, as such, the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Analysis 10. Argument of Learned counsel for the respondents: 9. Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned State counsel is fair enough to submit that the similar issue has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 7th August 2024 in L.P.A No.275 of 2024, as such, the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Analysis 10. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and in order to appreciate the fact with respect to issue said to be decided has gone through the memorandum of charge based upon that the case of the co-delinquent employee, namely, Krishna Mohan Singh, the appellant in L.P.A No.275 of 2024 has been decided. Although the equitation of charge said to be identical is not in dispute since there is no dispute by the learned State counsel, but even for appreciation of the said argument, this Court has gone through the memorandum of charge which is the subject matter of the present departmental proceeding. It would be evident that the charge against the present appellant is identical to that of the co-delinquent employee, namely, Krishna Mohan Singh, the appellant in L.P.A No.275 of 2024. 11. For ready reference, charge against the appellant is being quoted hereinbelow : Conclusion 12. This Court considering the fact that on the identical charge, this Court has already set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, in consequence thereof, the writ petition has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of punishment with an order of reinstatement of the appellant in service with all consequential benefits. 13. Therefore, in view of the judgment dated 7th August 2024 passed in L.P.A No. 275 of 2024, the present Letters Patent Appeal is hereby allowed, as such, disposed of. 14. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.