The court emphasized the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, highlighting the different standards of proof and purposes. It also underscored the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case when determining the advisability of staying departmental proceedings during a criminal trial.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, A.C.J. (Oral) – I.A. No. 1152 of 2017

The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 08 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph no. 3 thereof, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal No. 528 of 2016.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1152 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 528 of 2016

5. This Letters Patient Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P. (S) No. 1489 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016, whereby the punishment inflicted upon this appellant-delinquent of reduction to the lowest pay scale, for the grossest misconduct, which is at Annexure-1, is confirmed and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

6. FACTUAL MATRIX:

This appellant was serving as Sub Divisional Police Officer at Barhi, District Hazaribag.

Charge-sheet dated 15th May, 2009 was issued against this appellant, which is at Annexure-1. Charges are pertaining to the fact that this police officer had gone at the residence of one lady namely Aisha Khatoon with his Reader and Driver. Thereafter, threat was given to the said lady, assault was made and she was also kidnapped from Hazaribag and was taken to Jamshedpur and later on her clothes were taken away and she was thrown out. First Information Report was lodged under various sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 452, 341, 323, 342, 307, 325, 365, 379 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2009 is going on in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.

Charge sheet was filed mainly for the reason that by such type of behaviour of this police officer-appellant, the image of the police has been ruined in the eye of public at large. Dignity of the post has been lowered, because of the misconduct of the appellant and the act of this appellant is of moral turpitude, indiscipline, dereliction in duty and his misconduct was un-becoming of a police officer. These are the charges against this appellant for which charge sheet was given which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.

Enquiry officer was appointed. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant and the enquiry officer has given his report dated 14th April, 2010, which is at Annexure-5 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Charges levelled against this appellant have been proved.

Second show cause notice for quantum of punishment has also been given vide show cause notice dated 12th July, 2010.

Disciplinary authority viz. Principle Secretary, Department of Home, State of Jharkhand has inflicted punishment vide order dated 17th August, 2010, which is at Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, whereby this appellant was reduced to the lowest pay scale of his rank and in future he will not be given independent charge of the post and for suspension he will not be entitled to get any other allowances except subsistence allowance. Nonetheless, suspension period will not be treated as break in service.

This order of disciplinary authority was challenged in Departmental Appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.2011 by the Government of Jharkhand (Annexrue-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).

The writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P. (S) No. 1489 of 2012, wherein the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant was under challenge and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016 and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appe