The principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before dismissal, and acquittal in a criminal case must be considered in departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

W.P.(S) No. 3127 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs :

(i) For quashing the order with respect to the petitioner as contained in memo no. 83 dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the said respondent has suo moto reviewed/revisited the order as contained in memo no. 3536 dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has dismissed him from service with effect from the date of passing of the order of dismissal i.e., 25.04.2022.

(ii) For quashing Jamtara District Order No. 440/2022 as contained in memo no. 755 (A) dated 29.05.2022 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara by which the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been made effective with effect from 25.04.2022 and order to delete his name from all the registers has been passed.

(iii) For quashing the part of the order as contained in memo no. 3536 dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 on the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, whereby his punishment of dismissal from service was reduced by revisiting him in his initial basic pay to the post of Constable (Driver) for three years as well as his salary for the period of dismissal was ordered to be forfeited on the basis of ‘no work no pay’ and his period of absence was considered as break in service which would adversely affect his seniority, fixation of pension and other financial benefits in future.

(iv) For quashing the final order passed in Jamtara District Departmental Proceeding No. 03/17 as contained in memo no. 2751 dated 08.09.2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(v) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

2. W.P.(S) No. 3573 of 2022 has been preferred for the following reliefs :

(i) For quashing the order with respect to the petitioner as contained in memo no. 83 dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand (the revisional authority), whereby the punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner has been affirmed by dismissing his revision application.

(ii) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 548 dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

(iii) For quashing the final order passed in Jamtara District Departmental Proceeding No. 04/17 as contained in memo no. 4178 dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 5 – the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(iv) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The factual background of the cases is that a First Information Report being Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 177/16 was lodged on 23.11.2016 by one Jai Prakash Bhagat under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the owner of mobile No. 9572494035 had stolen Rs.82,000/- on 22.11.2016 from the dicky of his motor cycle. In course of investigation, it was found that the owner of the mobile no. 9572494035 was Deepak Mandal who upon his arrest, in his alleged confessional statement disclosed the name of the petitioners. Thereafter, a memo of charge as contained in