Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4084 of 2020
======================================================
Prakash Kumar Paswan S/o Ramesh Manjhi, R/o Village- Nawada, Post-
Mukrera, P.S. Revelganj, Dist.- Chapra, PIN 841301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police- cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The D.I.G. of Police, Shahabad- Range, Dehri on-son.
4. The S.P. of Rohtas (Dehri).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Prakash with
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kr. Jha, AC to AAG 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
Heard Mr. Gaurav Prakash, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the
State.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition has been
made to the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Rohtas in D.P. No. 3 of 2016 vide Rohtas District Order
No. 370/2017 read with Memo No. 682 dated 14.02.2017, on
the sole ground of subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the
learned trial court in Trial No. 868 of 2019, wherein the
petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 05.11.2019,
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dehri-on-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4084 of 2020 dt.03-03-2025
Sone, Rohtas.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended
that the issue posed before this Court is in narrow compass. The
petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Constable pursuant
to an advertisement published by the Central Selection Board of
Constable, Bihar, Patna. On being selected, appointment letter
was duly issued in favour of the petitioner, vide Memo No.
414/CSB dated 23.06.2015; pursuant thereto the petitioner
submitted his joining. While the petitioner was on duty, in the
meantime, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas vide different
orders requested the Chairman, Central Selection Board of
Constable to enquire about the candidature of the petitioner.
Upon such request, the inquiry was conducted and it has been
found that the signature/thumb impression of the petitioner was
mismatched with the handwriting on the answer book as well as
the signature/thumb impression; the Central Selection Board
also certified that prima facie it appears that in place of the
petitioner different candidate had appeared, who anyhow made
the petitioner successful in the written examination and as such
he was found to be involved in cheating and forgery. In this effect, a
letter has been issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Central
Selection Board of Constable as contained in Memo No. 1181
Patna High Court CWJC No.4084 of 2020 dt.03-03-2025
dated 31.10.2015. In consequent to the inquiry report
aforenoted, an FIR has also been instituted against the petitioner
bearing Dehri Town P.S. case No. 508 of 2015 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. With similar charges, the petitioner was put
to departmental proceeding and on being found the charges
proved it culminated into dismissal of the petitioner.
4. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned Advocate
for the petitioner further contended that it is the admitted
position that for the same charges, the departmental proceeding
as well as criminal proceeding was initiated, however with
respect to the charges levelled in the FIR, the petitioner was put
to trial in Trial No. 868 of 2019 and the petitioner stands
acquitted from all the charges as the prosecution has failed to
prove the same beyond all its reasonable doubt vide judgment
dated 05.11.2019 passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas.
5. In view of the subsequent development, learned
Advocate for the petitioner contended that once the charges are
identical and the evidences are same in both the proceedings, in
case of acquittal of the delinquent by the learned trial court, the
disciplinary authority ought to review the order of dismissal. To
Patna High Court CWJC No.4084 of 2020 dt.03-03-2025
support the afore noted contention, reliance has also been placed
on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Capt.
M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.& Ors.[(1999) 3
SCC 379. It is further contended that in identical situation, when
a constable was visited with the punishment of dismissal from
service by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur
which order was also affirmed by the Deputy Inspector General,
but subsequent thereto the delinquent, who was facing a
criminal proceeding based upon the same set of charges, on
being acquitted, this Court vide order 23.07.2019 in CWJC No.
16293 of 2014 has disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to
the delinquent to approach before the competent authority for
re-consideration of punishment in view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra).
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in the aforesaid
premise prays for re-consideration of the order of dismissal
inflicted upon the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
referring to the judgment passed by the learned trial court, has
submitted that the same is not honourable acquittal, rather the
witnesses did not turn up, resulting into acquittal of the
petitioner. However, he further submits that the petitioner would
Patna High Court CWJC No.4084 of 2020 dt.03-03-2025
be entitled to the benefit only when his case comes within the
parameters of the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted
hereinabove.
8. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of
the learned Advocates for the respective parties as well as
considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, based upon
the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition
stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach
before the respondent no. 4, who shall re-consider the order of
dismissal in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the cases
of Capt. M. Paul Anthonyi (supra), G.M. Tank vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors.[(2006) 5 SCC 446] and Ram Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [(2024) 1 SCC 175], which rullings entirely
govern the issue raised before this Court. It is expected that this
exercise must be concluded, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 05.03.2025
Transmission Date
