By Court: Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure-9)passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in the Departmental Proceeding No. 106 of 2001, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

A further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 06.08.2004 (Annexure-10) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa, whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned order of dismissal, was rejected.

3. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: The petitioner was working as a Homeguard. Inresponse to the advertisement issued by the police department, he offered his candidature for selection to the post of Constable, by filing applications not only for the selection in the district police at Jamshedpur, but also in the district police at Bhagalpur.

In the test pertaining to the district police at Jamshedpur, he participated and was selected.

In the test which was conducted at Bhagalpur, it was detected by the authorities conducting the test that, by using the admit card and photograph of the petitioner, another person had participated in the Physical Test. On the inference that the other person who had impersonated the petitioner, had committed offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with the aide and abetment of the petitioner and in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched out by the present petitioner, an F.I.R. was lodged not only against the said impersonator, but also against the present petitioner.

4. On the same allegations, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after serving him the memorandum of charge and upon being not satisfied with the show cause replies submitted by him.

5. It appears that in the departmental proceeding, though two witnesses were sought to be examined by the prosecution, but one witness who happened to be the Informant of the F.I.R. lodged at Bhagalpur Police Station, were examined and copy of the F.I.R. was adduced in evidence. The other witness who was sought to be examined, namely, the Investigating Officer of the case, did not appear and consequently, could not be examined.

6. The Inquiry Officer, basing his inferences on the statements contained in the allegations in the F.I.R. and the corroborative statements of the informant, recorded his finding that the charge against the petitioner was proved.

7. The Disciplinary Authority upon considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer, proceeded to record the order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Such order of punishment was passed after issuing a second show cause notice upon the petitioner and obtaining his explanations thereon.

8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment on the following grounds:-

(i) The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and entirely based on conjectures and surmises and without application of mind. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority has erred in failing to appreciate the fact that for the same charges, a criminal proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and the witnesses in the criminal proceeding were the same as that in the department proceeding and under such circumstances, even as per the ratio decided in several judgments by the Supreme court and the High Courts, the departmental proceeding ought to have been stayed till the final conclusion of the criminal trial. (iii) The Disciplinary Authority had also acted in a most mechanical manner and without application of mind and, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal is perverse.

9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even the appellate authority had not considered the factual aspects of the petitioner's case in proper perspective and he too, had acted in a most mechanical manner by merely adopting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, although suc