While departmental proceedings and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously, a departmental finding of guilt based solely on hearsay evidence without examining primary witnesses constitutes a 'no evidence' scenario, rendering the disciplinary action unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 367/General Section dated 21.02.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the original petitioner, namely, Ram Nath Singh (since deceased) has been dismissed from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 312/D dated 06.11.2018 (Annexure-7 series to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the original petitioner has been rejected.

2. During pendency of the present writ petition, the original petitioner died on 24.01.2021 and thereafter the present petitioner was substituted in his place vide order dated 02.01.2023.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the original petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Tisri Police Station in District-Giridih and he was made the Investigating Officer of Tisri P.S. Case No. 37/16 registered under Sections 147/148/149//354/379/307/436 of I.P.C and Tisri P.S. Case No. 38/2016 registered under Sections 147/148/149/354/379/307 of IPC, both instituted on 09.10.2016. The original petitioner was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the allegation made by one Naresh Yadav that the I.O of the aforesaid cases had demanded Rs.3,000/- from each of the accused persons of Tisri P.S. Case No. 38/2016 on the pretext of deleting their names from the said case. Subsequently, on verification of the allegation, A.C.B Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016 was registered on 30.11.2016 against the original petitioner. It was further alleged that the original petitioner was caught red handed by a team of ACB on 01.12.2016 while receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- and he was remanded to judicial custody on 02.12.2016. Thereafter, he was suspended from service with immediate effect vide Giridih District Order No. 2623/2016 as contained in memo No. 6078 dated 02.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.3. A memo of charge was issued by the respondent No.3 to the original petitioner vide D.O. No. 2703/16 on 08.12.2016 for showing extreme lethargy, dereliction of duty, indiscipline, masterfulness, arbitrariness, inaction, violation of order, being caught red handed by Anti-Corruption Bureau while taking bribe of Rs.10,000/-, involvement in corruption and being an incompetent police officer.

4. An explanation was asked from the original petitioner vide memo No. 2726/Confidential dated 12.09.2017 issued under the signature of the respondent No.3. He submitted his explanation on 24.09.2017 before the respondent No.3 requesting inter alia to stay the departmental proceeding till the final order was passed in the criminal case instituted against him. However, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted report observing that the aforesaid charges against the original petitioner stood proved and also recommended for his dismissal from service. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 dismissed the original petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2018. The original petitioner then preferred an appeal against the said order of ‘’dismissal from service’’ before the respondent No.2, however, the same was also rejected vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits t