Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

Alleging that appellant and his companions committed robbery on certain persons on 12.10.1991, they were chased by the local people and were apprehended. The three accused persons were police constables. They were handed over to the police and the money which was robbed by them was also recovered from their possession. Police registered Case No. Budha Colony Police Case No.319 of 1991 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (in short the ‘IPC’). The departmental authorities almost simultaneously initiated departmental proceedings. On 6.1.1992 a Writ Petition filed by the appellant and the few others were listed before the Patna High Court. The same was numbered as CWJC No. 7846 of 1991. Challenge was to the initiation of the proceeding. In the meantime the criminal court had taken cognizance. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the trial was concluded and the appellant was acquitted by Order dated 18.12.1992. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the ground that the departmental proceeding has since been concluded. The appellant was terminated by Order dated 4.7.1992. The internal remedy i.e. departmental appeal was availed. Three writ petitions were filed by the three accused persons. Petitioner’s Writ petition was numbered as CWJC No. 5457 of 1994. All the three writ petitions were disposed of by a common Order on 22.5.1995. Two points were urged before the High Court. The first was that in view of the acquittal, no Order of termination could be passed; secondly, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied. First point was rejected by the High Court and so far as the second point is concerned the High Court directed supply of the copy of the enquiry report. The copy was supplied by the DIG and subsequently the Order of dismissal was upheld. Another writ petition was filed, in which the stand taken was that in terms of Rule 847 of the Bihar Police Manual (in short the ‘Manual’) no departmental proceedings could have been initiated till the time for preferring an appeal expires. Reliance was placed on the view expressed in another Writ petition.

Learned Single Judge who heard the matter took a different view and referred the matter to the Division Bench. The stand of the appellant in the writ petition was that there was violation of Rule 828 (b) and 847 as there was no scope for dismissal unless informed in writing. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.,1 [1999 (3) SCC 679]. The High Court did not accept the stand of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. It was held that the Rules in question form the part of the Manual and form part of the caption “Criminal Prosecution”. Referring to Rule 847 it was held that if the criminal case has terminated in conviction, in that case the departmental proceedings shall not be taken until the appeal or Order of conviction has been heard, or the time allowed of the appeal has expired. But there is nothing in the rules that once there is an allegation against the police personnel for which a criminal case has been instituted, then no departmental proceeding shall be instituted till the criminal case is concluded. As regards the non-observance of certain formalities in the departmental proceedings, the High Court noted that in the earlier Writ Petition only two points were urged and there was no complaint of the defects in the enquiry. As regards non-observance of the provisions contained in Rule 828(b) of the Manual, the High Court noted that all the requisite formalities have been observed and adequate opportunity of defending himself was given to the appellant.

4.In support of the appeal learned