The disciplinary proceeding must be founded on a separate charge memo, and the prosecution must produce supporting evidence to confirm the charges.

Heard Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-14 for the State.

2. The petitioner has been dismissed from service vide Memo No. 860 dated 01.8.2006 impugned at Annexure-7 and which order of dismissal has been affirmed by the appellate authority by order passed on 21.8.2008, a copy of which order is placed on record by the respondents vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed.

3. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. Fact of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner holding the post of a Constable in the State Police Force was charged with theft of a portable television from a house of one Mehrunisha @ Pagli. The allegation is that while the accused including the petitioner were trying to hide the television in a temple that the priest got suspicious and informed the local villagers and whereupon the local police arrived, a police case was registered giving rise to Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 124 of 2002 for offence punishable under section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. A departmental proceeding was also held alongside, the enquiry report of which is placed on record holding the petitioner guilty. A show cause was asked from the petitioner vide Annexure-5 which was duly replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-6. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied has passed the order of penalty on 01.8.2006 impugned at Annexure-7 which has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order passed on 22.8.2008 annexed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and the petitioner feeling aggrieved is before this Court.

5. A rather brief argument has been advanced by Mr. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner to question the order of dismissal. He refers to the judgment and order of the appellate court present at Annexure-9 to the writ petition to submit that the petitioner was acquitted from the charges in the criminal case in absence of any evidence supporting the charges. He submits that although the petitioner was charged with having committed theft of a television belonging to one Mehrunisha @ Pagli but neither the owner of the television namely Mehrunisha @ Pagli was examined as a witness nor the item of theft was produced before the trial court. He thus submits that since the foundation for the criminal case as well as the departmental proceeding was resting on identical charge and identical evidence, the very acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case by itself is sufficient to invalidate the dismissal order. The orders impugned have also been questioned by Mr. Akhtar on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as according to learned counsel, the petitioner was denied sufficient opportunity to defend himself. It is also the argument of Mr. Akhtar that although a departmental proceeding was held alongside but no charge memo was served on the petitioner and the proceeding entirely rested on the allegation made in the FIR and the evidence which formed part of the criminal case. Learned counsel in reference to a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010(2) PLJR 20 (Rakesh Kumar Sinha vs. State) paragraph-9 to 13, submitted that in view of the undisputed circumstances that the foundation for the two proceedings were same, the acquittal in the criminal case is enough to set aside the dismissal order. Learned counsel has also referred to a judgment of the Division Bench in Arjun Prasad Verma vs. State reported in 2015(3) PLJR 178 and in reference to paragraph-13 he submits that the absence of charge-sheet has been held to be a serious infirmity.

6. The argument of Mr. Akhtar has been contested by Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned State Counsel to submit that a mere acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case ipso facto would not be sufficient for his exoneration in the departmental proceedings. He has referred t