By Court. -The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, was departmentally proceeded for certain charges contained in Annexure-4 i.e. enquiry report. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 30.5.2005 as contained in Annexure-7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been dismissed by an order dated 9.1.2006 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged, the order as contained in Annexures-7 and 9 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as of the Appellate Authority.

Some relevant facts required to be 'noticed are as under:-

2. On 21.12.1992 at about 6.30 p.m., one Nirmala Devi submitted a fardbeyan before S.1. of Lohardaga Police Station alleging therein that on that date at about 4.00 p.m., she was in her house and at that time, one young man came there and by introducing himself as Dilip, entered into her house and asked for a glass of water. She further alleged that when the said accused reached near her, he caught her right hand and started squeezing her breast and thereafter threw her on a cot, at this, she raised hulla, upon which, his brother Suresh Prasad came there and then the accused fled away. She further alleged that the other accused was standing outside of her house. Thereafter the villagers chased both of the culprits and they were caught by the villagers. On being caught, they disclosed their names as Dilip and Arvind i.e. the present petitioner. In the meantime, police patrolling party reached there and then those two accused persons were handed over to the police.

3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, a first information report was registered against both the accused persons and they were taken into custody. The police thereafter on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448, 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, by judgment dated 18.9.1996 held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons and thereby acquitted them from the charges.

4. Both the accused persons were police constables. The petitioner Arvind Kumar was departmentally proceeded for the charges, the details of which have already been mentioned in the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ petition. It appears that during course of enquiry, neither the informant nor any other witnesses mentioned in the first information report were examined. Only the Sub-Inspector of Police before whom the fardbeyan was lodged and one another police official, namely, Asim Kumar Dasgupta, were examined and some documents were adduced in evidence.

These documents established that the petitioner was arrested at the spot and was sent to jail. The other document was brought on record to establish the fact that he was suspended from service after he was sent to jail.

5. The enquiry officer on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, found that the charges against the petitioner were established and thereby passed an order of punishment for dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, which has been dismissed as already stated herein above, by order dated 19.1.2006 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the orders as contained in Annexure-7 and Annexure-9 passed by the disciplinary authority as well of the Appellate Authority respectively on the ground that since the petitioner was acquitted by a competent Criminal Court for exactly the same charges, then he ought to have been exonerated in the departmental proceeding also.

7. I am unable to accept such