Departmental misconduct must be proven with cogent evidence; disproportionate punishments warrant reconsideration under fairness principles.

ORDER :

1. The appellant approached the writ Court to challenge the order of dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police at Giridih on 25th July 2017. This order of dismissal from service was affirmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 12th February 2018 and the revisional authority on 28th June 2018.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 2nd January 2023 by which W.P.(S) No. 353 of 2019 filed by him has been dismissed by the writ Court holding that the order of dismissal from service as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities is not illegal and, therefore, does not require interference of the writ Court.

3. The writ Court has held as under:

“6. After going through the record and the charge-sheet, I find that the allegation against the petitioner is grave. It is alleged that he took out Rs.400/- from the cash box of shop. One of the evidence is the CD of the footage of the CCTV. The Enquiry Officer after going through the footage of CCTV and other evidence concluded that it is this petitioner who had taken away the money from cash box while Rajesh Thakur, the colleague of this petitioner, was standing in front of the gate. The charge against the petitioner thus stood proved. When CCTV footage clearly suggests that the petitioner has taken out money from the cash box, it is relevance whether the shop owner was examined or not. The petitioner who is in police service and is supposed to safeguard the property of a common man has himself took out money from the cash box, is an unpardonable misconduct. This fact has been proved from the CCTV footage and the evidence of the other witnesses. There is no illegality or irregularity in the entire departmental proceeding. The finding of fact is based on evidence.

7. So far as the compromise in the criminal case is concerned, the same cannot be considered in view of specific evidence which has been led in the departmental proceeding. This Court doubts the compromise but I am not entering into the aspect of the compromise in this case which arose out of a departmental proceeding, wherein there is sufficient evidence to prove the misconduct of this petitioner.

8. So far as parity is concerned, I find from the Enquiry Report that there is specific evidence that it is this petitioner who had taken out the money from the cash box while his colleague was standing outside. Thus, it cannot be said that the punishment is disproportionate. The punishment of dismissal is absolutely proportionate, which needs no interference.

9. Thus on what has been held above, I find no illegality in the impugned order of dismissal nor the order passed by the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, considering the degree of misconduct committed by the petitioner.

10. Thus this application stands dismissed.”

4. A charge-memo dated 18th October 2016 was served upon the appellant on an allegation that in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd October 2016 he was found involved in theft of Rs.400/- from a shop while he was on surveillance as a member of the Tiger Mobile police party. The charge-memo dated 18th October 2016 was issued for the misconduct of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and delinquency which acts were unbecoming of a police constable. The aforesaid charge-memo was issued to the appellant after a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) 1st at Giridih who had submitted a report vide Memo No. 536 dated 3rd October 2016.

5. Along with the charge-memo dated 18th October 201