JUDGMENT :

Heard through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.07.2010, passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 08.09.1987 and pursuant thereto; he joined the said post in Hazaribagh District (presently, Koderma) on 17.09.1987. While the petitioner was posted and working at Koderma, the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi has lodged a complaint against this petitioner vide Complaint Case No.115/2008 which was registered as Satgawan P.S. Case No.44/2008, corresponding to G.R. No.812/2008.

Pursuant to the First Information Report; the respondent No.3 terminated the service of the petitioner without holding any departmental proceeding and/or calling a meeting of Establishment Committee. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the said impugned order clearly transpires that it has been passed after holding internal inquiry but only pursuant to the filing of FIR. Subsequently, in the year, 2012, after thorough investigation, the police filed a final report before the Court on 31.03.2012 mentioning therein that the entire allegation against the petitioner is false and the case has been filed as mistake of fact. Subsequently, the said final report filed by the Investigating Officer has been accepted by the Court vide order dated 24.08.2012.

It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the State has never challenged the order accepting the final form; meaning thereby to say that the said dispute was set at rest. Pursuant to the aforesaid order accepting the final form; the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 for his reinstatement but the same was denied and forced with the situation, the petitioner approached this Court.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR and the memo of charge are based on same set of fact arising out of Complaint Case No.115 of 2008, dated 19.08.2008 lodged by Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. In the said criminal case, a final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer mentioning therein that the entire allegation against the petitioner is false and case has been filed as mistake of fact. The said final form is annexed as Annexure- 4 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation on 12th September, 2012 but no decision has been taken.

5. He further submits that the petitioner was terminated from the post of Assistant Teacher without initiation of any departmental proceeding or without giving him any opportunity of being heard. He further contended that when the FIR and memo of charge are based on same set of facts and evidence then after filing of the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and accepted by the Court mentioning therein that the entire allegation against the petitioner is false and case has been filed as mistake of fact; there is no justification in not reinstating this petitioner.

He contended that the entire departmental case is a case of no evidence, inasmuch as, the impugned order itself speaks about the criminal case and in the said criminal case the petitioner has been honorably acquitted, so much so that he has not even put on trial.

Learned counsel further referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.34 as under:

“34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, “the