Jharkhand High Court
Sri Bhagwan Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 20 July, 2017
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6598 of 2016
-----
Sri Bhagwan Ram, son of Late Rameshish Ram, resident of
village-Kusumi, Post-Jamhori, PS-Tarari,District-Bhojpur, Bihar
....... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The State of Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna officiating from
Police Headquarter, Bailey Road, Post-Bailey Road, Police
Station-Bailey Road, District-Patna
4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Military Police-4, Bokaro,
officiating from Bokaro, Post-Bokaro, Police Station-Bokaro,
District-Bokaro ....... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, JC to A.G.
For the Resp.-Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, JC to G.A.(Bihar)
-----
09/20.07.2017Heard.
2. The petitioner after dismissal from service vide order dated 29.09.1988 approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.576 of 1996, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.1997. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the appellate authority which dismissed the appeal on 10.05.1999. In the meantime, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.1995, he was acquitted from criminal charges in Sessions Trial No.90 of 1992/41 of 1993, in which he was accused of committing offences under Section 376, 446 and 511 I.P.C. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7999 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated 21.01.2016, directing the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision considering petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case, in the light of judgment in Divisional Controller, Karnataka, State Road Transport Corporation Vrs. M.G. Vittal Rao reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442. The disciplinary authority has now passed order dated 08.06.2016. This is the order, which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present proceeding.
3. Referring to decision in M.G. Vittal Rao case, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 08.06.2016 has been passed in breach of the order passed by the writ Court. It is contended that order passed in the domestic enquiry which was initiated on registration of a criminal case was quashed by the writ Court and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service. In essence, contention is that the charges in the domestic enquiry and before the criminal court were identical and therefore, acquittal in the criminal case would result in reinstatement in service.
4. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 in Bihar Military Police as constable. On 17.08.1987, a charge-memo was served upon him. A First Informant Report vide Goh P.S. Case No.15 of 1987 for the offences under sections 376/511/448 I.P.C was registered against him, on the allegation that he entered into the house of one Khairu Nisha wife of Mustafa Mian and tried to commit rape upon her. In the departmental enquiry charges levelled against him were found proved and the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service on 28.09.1988. The appellate authority vide an order dated 10.05.1999 rejected the appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 28.09.1988. While interfering with the aforesaid orders in C.W.J.C. No.7999 of 1999, this Court did not order reinstatement in service and that order has become final.
5. What is important in this case is that order of acquittal has been passed after the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service. Obviously, the order of acquittal dated 30.11.1995 was not before the disciplinary authority. Besides the above, the judgement and order dated 30.11.1995, by which the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge of rape, would disclose that the informant did not support the prosecution case and other material witnesses were tendered by the prosecution. Evidently, the order of acquittal in the criminal case is not on merits and it is not an honourable acquittal from the criminal charges. It is well-settled that a domestic enquiry and a criminal trial can proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry. The nature of both the proceedings and the test applied to reach a final conclusion in the matter, are entirely different. The charge-memo dated 17.08.1987 records charges of grave indiscipline, misconduct, dereliction of duty and involvement in the criminal case. Obviously, the charges in the domestic enquiry and before the criminal court were not similar. Charges in the domestic enquiry were found proved on the basis of evidences led by the parties whereas, the criminal case has failed on account of the witnesses turning hostile.
6. In the above facts, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir