By Court - The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the penalty order dated 16.02.2001 and appellate order dated 06.03.2003.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 04.02.1997 a First Information Report being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 66 of 1997 was registered. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 26.02.1997 and an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry report dated 11.08.2000 was submitted finding the charge against the petitioner proved. The penalty order dated 16.02.2001, dismissing the petitioner from service, was passed by Respondent No.4 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 06.03.2003 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 stating as under:

11. “That it is also a fact that the petitioner was informed about the departmental proceeding but he deliberately did not appear in it, therefore, the departmental proceeding had to be conducted Exparte. It is stated that the respondent no.4 finding the charge serious and grave passed an order dated 11.08.2000 and 16.02.2001 dismissing the petitioner from the service.

12. That it is further stated and submitted that a first information report being Dhanbad P.S. Case No.66/97, under Section 409 was instituted as against the petitioner who absconded and as a result his movable and immovable properties were attached.

13. That it is further stated and submitted that respondent no.2 by an order dated 6.3.2003 has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by reasoned order.

14. That it is further stated and submitted that yardstick or mode of proof in both departmental and criminal proceeding are different. In the former, the rule of probabilities are taken into account, while in the later the concept “beyond all reasonable doubt” is considered. Hence the finding of one does not affect the finding of other. Further pendency of criminal case is not impediment under the law and proceed in departmental proceeding.

15. That it is also important to mention here that as per Police Manual Rule Part-3, page-49, a para 10 clearly says that if the delinquent is absconder, it shall not be an impediment in the departmental proceeding.”

4. When the matter was listed on 30.08.2013, the following order was passed,

“Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instruction whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dealt with by Deputy Inspector General of Police and order dated 06.03.2003 has been passed by the same Deputy Inspector General of Police or by the Director General of Police.

Call the matter on 13.09.2013.”

5. Again on 13.09.2013, the following order was passed :-

“The respondents are directed to file an affidavit bringing on record the original order passed by the Additional Director General of Police which has been approved by the Director General of Police.

Call the matter after one week.”

6. A supplementary counter-affidavit dated 27.09.2013 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, bringing on record the recommendation dated 03.02.2003 which was approved by Director General of Police on 10.02.2003, stating as under:

4. “That it is humbly submitted that after receiving the memo of appeal, the office of the Director General of Police vide letter no. 1597 dated 04.09.2001 directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coalfield range, Bokaro to give his opinion/comment upon the matter and after receiving the same, the concerned file with detailed noting was placed before the Additional Director General of Police on 21.12.2002.

5. That it is humbly submitted that on perusal of the concerned file and noting therein, the Additional Director General of Police asked some queries on 16.01.2003 and again the said file was placed before him on 03.02.2003 and finally the said authority recommended for rejection of the appeal of the petitioner on 10.02.2003 which was approved by the Dir