The main legal point established is that subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate a completed departmental proceeding, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in departmental proceedings is limited.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. In this writ application, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.9.1997 passed by the Commandant CISF whereby after conclusion of a Departmental proceeding petitioner was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. Further the Appellate Order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority in the Departmental Appeal is also under challenge as the appeal also stood dismissed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was punished in the Departmental proceeding but the petitioner was a mere a scapegoat. In criminal revision which arose out of the same incident being Criminal Revision No. 614 of 2002, the conviction of the petitioner was set aside and he was acquitted, thus as per the petitioner, he is entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment and should be reinstated after setting aside the order of dismissal.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner in Departmental proceeding are grave. The standard of proof in Departmental proceeding is not the same as that in a criminal trial. He further submits that mere acquittal in a criminal case, will not entitle the petitioner to get benefit, as the Departmental proceeding concluded much prior to the order of acquittal in criminal revision. It has further been argued that there was no illegality or irregularity in the Departmental proceeding, thus this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, not being the Appellate Authority, cannot interfere with the order of dismissal.

5. After going through the records, I find that the petitioner was a constable in CISF. He was posted in BCCL, Dhanbad Mines to provide Security. He was suspended as he had committed misconduct. Charge-sheet was submitted to the petitioner. There were three articles of charges against the petitioner which are as follows:-

“Article of Charge No.1

No.882290591 Const. M.Y Ingle (under suspension) of Area IX of CISF Unit, BCCL Dhanbad has committed an act of gross misconduct, breach of discipline and dereliction of duties in that he was detailed for ‘A’ shift duty at pay loader workshop. GOCP on 24.3.96 from 0500 hrs to 1700 hrs, but he was found helping in theft being committed at his duty post, in civil cloths. He was caught red-handed by HC/ GD.B.D Pathak along with a thief namely Nepal Sav. Thus, this act of the individual tantamounts to gross misconduct and dereliction of duties and highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of an Armed Force of the Union. Hence the charge

Article of Charge No.II

No.882290591 Const. M.Y. Ingle (under suspension) of Area IX of CISF Unit, BCL Dhanbad, has committed an act of gross misconduct and morale turpitude in that he asked Mr. Nepal Sav to pay Rs.500/- to him in order to assist him in committing a theft during his ‘A’ Shift duty at pay loader workshop, GOCP on 24.3.96 from 0500 hours to 1700 hours. This act of the individual is highly prejudicial to the good order and derogatory to the reputation of the Force. Hence the charge.

Article of Charge No.III

That No. 882290591 Const. M.Y Ingle (under suspension) of Area IX of CISF Unit. BCCL Dhanbad has been awarded one major punishment during his service i.e “pay reduction to the minimum stage from Rs980/- to Rs.855 in the time scale of pay for one year without cumulative effect” for desertion from unit lines w.e.f 4.3.95 to 9.5.95. His past records of misconduct and disorderly behaviour shows that he is a habitual offender. He has not shown any improvement in his conduct in spite of repeated opportunities given to him. Thus, his habitual misconduct tantamounts to gross indiscipline and is highly prejudicial to good order and reputation of an Armed Force of the Union.”

6. As the reply was unsatisfactory, the petitioner was proceeded against in the Departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Authority after collecting the evidence submitted his reported wherein it was held that petitioner is