The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors, and it cannot act as an Appellate Authority. The Court also emphasized that in a departmental enquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply, and all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Challenge in the present intra-court appeal is to the judgment dated 16.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench by which C.W.J.C. No. 471 of 2004 filed by the respondent-writ applicant has been allowed.

2. The respondent was appointed as constable in the Dog Squad of the C.I.D. in the year 1973. He proceeded on earned leave for two days and resumed his duty on 08.08.1988. In the meantime, an F.I.R. was lodged with a request to organize a raiding party to arrest persons who had demanded money by blackmailing the informant. The respondent was caught with Rs. 40,000/- by the raiding party and taken into custody. He was placed under suspension on 08.08.1988 and on 05.10.1988 chargesheet was submitted. On 14.06.1989 a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. On 26.04.1994, the respondent was convicted in the criminal case. On 23.06.1995, the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding and the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. issued second show cause to the respondent. In the meantime, conviction of the respondent was set aside in appeal by judgment dated 16.02.1996. Thereafter, the respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause on 11.03.1996. He was dismissed from service by order dated 14.06.1996 as contained in memo no. 1833 dated 21.06.1996 by the Superintendent of Police (C), C.I.D., Bihar, Patna. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the D.I.G., C.I.D., Bihar, Patna by order dated 11.07.1997 contained in memo no. 2404 dated 14.07.1997. The respondent filed memorial before the I.G., C.I.D. on 24.09.1997 but when the same was not decided, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 5946 of 2002, which was disposed off by order dated 13.05.2002 with a direction to the I.G., C.I.D. to dispose off the memorial filed by the respondent within two months. By order dated 06.08.2003, the memorial filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. The respondent being aggrieved by the same, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 471 of 2004 for setting aside the order of dismissal which was affirmed in appeal and also by the Director General of Police. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 16.07.2013 and the same is the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Bench has misdirected itself by going into the merits of the allegation as an Appellate Authority, which is impermissible. It was further submitted that even the probability of the allegation has been held in favour of the respondent, which is not justified. Learned counsel submitted that the parameters in recording an evidence of guilt in a departmental proceeding is different from that in a criminal case and even initially the trial court had convicted the respondent and only in appeal he has been acquitted. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Bench has also not appreciated the law in its correct perspective, inasmuch as, it has been held that the respondent had to be given opportunity of cross-examining the main prosecution witness, without appreciating the fact that the respondent was present during the time the prosecution witness was examined and him not cross- examining the witness would not make the testimony weak in law. It is submitted that if at all the prosecution had not given opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine, then objection ought to have been made by the respondent, who was very much present during the examination of the said prosecution witness, but he has not made any objection. Learned counsel submitted that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Director General of Police on the memorial filed by the respondent, are well considered and do not suffer from any illegal infirmity. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent was caught with Rs. 40,000/- which he had received from the informant which has not been