JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority in Departmental Proceeding No. 39 of 2005 as contained in Memo No. 1902 dated 23.04.2008, whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service and also for quashing the appellate order dated 18.06.2009, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of punishment was sustained.

3. The fact reveals that while the petitioner was posted in the Manoharpur Police Station as a Reserve Guard, a Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2005 was instituted against this petitioner and also against one Shankar Prasad Singh. On the same allegations, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against this petitioner and Shankar Prasad Singh and finally the order of dismissal was passed against both the delinquent employees.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2005 passed in S.T. No. 146 of 2005; as such, the impugned order of punishment should also be quashed.

5. Mr. Bhanu Kumar submits that the co-employee who was also charge-sheeted by the same charge-sheet and was also punished departmentally; preferred a writ application bearing W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2009 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law only on the quantum of punishment.

He further submits that the instant writ application may also be disposed of by quashing the impugned orders in the light of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2009; wherein the Hon’ble Court has remitted the case back to the authorities after quashing the impugned orders.

6. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the grounds as raised by the petitioner in the instant writ application is not sustainable in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the petitioner was given ample opportunity and there was no procedural irregularity in holding the departmental proceeding. However, Mr. Krishna could not demonstrate that there is any difference in the charges against this petitioner with that of Shankar Prasad Singh.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents and averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that a common charge-sheet was issued whereby this petitioner and Shankar Prasad Singh was departmentally proceeded in connection with the criminal case i.e. Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2005 and thereafter, the petitioner as well as the co-employee (Shankar Prasad Singh) were removed from service. Subsequently, the said co-employee (Shankar Pd. Singh) preferred a writ application before this Court and this Court directed the respondent no. 5 to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law only on quantum of punishment. Para 9 of the said order is quoted herein-below:

“9. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement and as a logical sequitor the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 5) in Departmental Proceeding No. 40 of 2005 being not legally sustainable is hereby quashed. The Disciplinary Authority (respondent no. 5 is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the quantum of punishment within a period of four months.”

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the charges were common in case of both the employees; as such, the impugned order of punishment dated 23.04.2008 as well as the order in appeal dated 18.06.2009, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law only on the quantum of punish