ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.J.K.Parmar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent-State and its authorities.

2. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the revisional authority whereby in exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the revisional authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 23.11.2017 imposing penalty on the petitioner pursuant to departmental inquiry. The petitioner has also prayed to set aside the order passed in appeal as well as the original order of penalty and has prayed to set aside the chargesheet as well.

3. The petitioner was Armed Police Sub-Inspector posted at Surat. It was alleged against him that on 06.04.2010, along with a press reporter, a newspaper editor and a newspaper photographer, the petitioner went to the place of one Shri Rakesh Manilal Patel who was running his business in the name of Laxmi Dairy. On reaching there, it was alleged, the petitioner threatened the said owner of the Laxmi Dairy that he had been running the shop without licence and that he was selling duplicate goods. Threats were exerted that they would photograph the shop and would publish the photographed in the newspaper. The petitioner and other persons demanded Rs.60,000/- and out of which obtained Rs.15,000/- by force. Thereafter, the petitioner asked said Rakesh to come to the Police Station on particular day and gave further threats if the bribe was not paid.

3.1 For the aforesaid acts of misconduct out of the said incident, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The chargesheet was issued on 08.10.2014. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer who found the petitioner guilty. The notice for imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect was issued. The petitioner filed his reply to the said notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner, ultimately the penalty was reduced to the fine of Rs.5,000/- and it was further directed that the period between 27.12.2010 to 25.05.2011 to be treated as the period of suspension.

3.2 The appeal of the petitioner against the said order of penalty came to be dismissed by the Director General of Police on 02.04.2016. The revision there against was also dismissed as above as per the impugned orders. All the orders are sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

4. The ground raised in the petition and was submitted in course of the hearing by learned advocate for the petitioner was that the respondent authorities had no right to punish the petitioner and impose punishment as the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. It was contended that the inquiry conducted and the punishment was not legally sustainable. It appears that for the said incident, criminal case was registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, by giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

5. On going through the facts on record and the impugned order of the revisional authority, nothing was shown and established which could be said to have vitiated the inquiry. The inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. Anything leading to the causation of prejudice to the petitioner was not indicated. The ground that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case was not to be countenanced to set aside the inquiry and the punishment inasmuch as the proceedings of criminal case and the proceedings of departmental inquiry always proceed on different footing. Merely because criminal case instituted resulted in the acquital, it would not preclude the employer from initiating the departmental inquiry proceedings for the misconduct under the applicable services rules.

5.1 It is also well-settl