Departmental proceedings and criminal cases are distinct; acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary action if misconduct is proven.

JUDGMENT :

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.569 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, while partly allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 26.12.2001 by remitting the matter back to the respondent no.4 to pass a fresh order.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was deputed for Night shift for armed patrolling duty in the intervening night 22/23-07-2001 from 2100 hours to 0500 hours at camp no.II store. During his duty, it was reported that some criminal have stolen 1.040 MT Brass guides from his duty beat. In the intervening night, the Bokaro Steel City Police recovered 1.040 MT Brass guides from near the Air Strip Boundary wall which was just outside the camp-II store area and the police also arrested a criminal.

4. Thereafter, the police party went to Camp II store and met ASI Mr. S.N.Roy and informed him about the recovered Brass guides and wanted to see the lock and seal of the store and its surrounding area. Thereafter, police party went to the camp II store to see the Brass guide recovered by the police which was kept near the Air Strip Boundary wall.

5. In contemplation with the aforesaid theft; a charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner to which he filed a detailed reply denying all the charges and thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry officer has held him guilty and submitted its enquiry report and pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service.

6. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of removal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and did not interfered with the order of removal. 6. In the meantime, the police also lodged an F.I.R. and a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 686 of 2001 read with T.R. No. 354 of 2008 has been initiated/proceeded against this petitioner.

7. However, the writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 29.08.2008. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no.6, however, the same was rejected summarily.

8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.569 of 2009.

9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner is the member of the disciplined force working as Constable and was assigned the duty for night shift for armed patrolling duty in the intervening night 22/23-07-2001 from 2100 hours to 0500 hours at camp no.II store. It was reported that some criminals have stolen 1.040 MT Brass Guides from his duty beat. In the intervening night, the Bokaro Steel City Police had recovered 1.040 MT Brass Guides from near the Air Strip Boundary Wall which was just outside the camp-II store area and the police also arrested a criminal. The Police Party, thereafter, went to Camp II store and met ASI Mr. S.N.Roy and informed him about the recovered Brass guides and wanted to see the lock and seal of the store and its surrounding area.

10. The writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case being G.R. Case No.686 of 2001 read with T.R. No.354 of 2008, however, the disciplinary authority has initiated a disciplinary proceeding. Both the proceedings have gone together. However, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 18.10.2001 prior to conclusion of the criminal proceeding, by which, the writ petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of acceptance of finding recorded by the inquiry officer of gross dereliction in duty, misconduct and indiscipline.

11. The respondent-writ petitioner, however, has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the original authority but the same h