Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11308 of 2022
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar S/o Ram Ishwar Prasad, Resident of Village- Chintaman Chak
Tola Mokama, PS - Mokama, District - Patna.
.. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. I.G. Tirhut Range Muzaffarpur.
4. S.P. Vaishali.
5. Principal M.P.T.C. Dumraon, District - Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Kaushlendra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-03-2025
Heard Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned Advocate for
the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Memo No.
692/Ra.Ka. dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Superintendent of
Police, Vaishali, whereby he has been inflicted with the
punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved with the order of
dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed vide Memo No. 1086/go. dated 18.05.2020 issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
2/8
by the I.G., Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. The memorial
preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority also
came to be rejected vide order dated 28.06.2022 by the
Director General of Police, Bihar Patna. All the aforenoted
orders are under challenge before this Court.
3. The, short facts, which led to the filing of the
present writ petition are that the petitioner joined the service
on the post of Constable in Bihar Police on 05.01.2000. While
the petitioner was engaged in PTC training at MPTC,
Dumraon, a charge was framed against him that on
15.10.2019
at about 12:00 a.m., he along with one Upendra
Kumar Singh in a drunken position abused and assaulted one
PTC trainee Constable 684 Yogendra Nath Kumar of Saran
district. The petitioner was subjected to medical examination
and the doctor has found him under the influence of alcohol,
leading to institution of the Dumraon P.S. Case No. 364 of
2019 dated 15.10.2019 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and 37(b) of the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2018.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was
placed under suspension and a show-cause notice was served
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
upon him. On being found the reply to the show-cause of the
petitioner unsatisfactory, a departmental proceeding,
numbered as Case No.03/19 was initiated. In the inquiry, the
charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. The
petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice which
was duly responded, however, the same did not find favour
and the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred appeal and memorial as
aforenoted, which also came to be rejected by the authorities
concerned.
5. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel
for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is
within a limited bound. For the identical charges one Upendra
Kumar Singh was also subjected to departmental proceeding
and he was also awarded with the punishment of dismissal,
like the petitioner. Both Upendra Kumar Singh as well as the
petitioner were subjected to judicial proceeding arising out of
Dumraon P.S. Case No. 364 of 2019 with identical allegation.
It is further contended that the petitioner having faced the
rigour of trial finally acquitted from all the charges vide
judgment dated 21.02.2023 passed by Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
Excise Judge-I, Buxar.
6. Referring to the judgment passed by the learned
trial Court, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-19 to the
writ petition, it is further contended that the Court has
specifically observed that considering all above appreciation
of the evidence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charges levelled against the accused nos.1 and 2 (Dinesh
Kumar), who is petitioner herein. Getting the favourable order
by the learned trial Court whereby none of the charges have
been proved by the prosecution, Upendra Kumar Singh who
was also subjected to identical departmental as well as judicial
proceeding approached before this Court in CWJC No. 1989
of 2021. The learned Court having taken note of the mandate
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.; (1999) 3 SCC
679, G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujrat & Ors.; (2006) 5 SCC
446 and further in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.; (2024) 1 SCC 175, has opined that since the charges
in the Departmental enquiry and Criminal Court are identical,
the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are also same and
the Special Court acquitted the petitioner with the finding that
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges and no
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
witness supported its case against the petitioner, the order of
the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority
are fit to be set aside. The copy of the decision dated
09.07.2024 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this
Court has been placed on record as Annexure- P/22.
7. Learned counsel for the State dispelling the
contention of the petitioner has submitted that it is the
admitted position in law that the charges in departmental
proceeding are to be proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities and so far the criminal case is concerned, the
charges are to be proved beyond all its reasonable doubt
hence, the acquittal in the criminal case would not have much
bearing over the departmental proceeding. It is also contended
that there are no infirmities in the impugned order of dismissal
which was duly affirmed in the appeal as well as memorial;
least no infirmities has been pointed out by the petitioner
while assailing the impugned order.
8. Before parting with the case, it would be apt to
encapsulate the relevant observation and declaration of the
Court which govern, the case in hand, under its four corner.
Paragraph No.31 of the judgment in the case of G.M. Tank
(supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
"31. In our opinion, such
facts and evidence in the departmental as
well as criminal proceedings were the
same without there being any iota of
difference, the appellant should succeed.
The distinction which is usually proved
between the departmental and criminal
proceedings on the basis of the approach
and burden of proof would not be
applicable in the instant case. Though the
finding recorded in the domestic enquiry
was found to be valid by the courts
below, when there was an honourable
acquittal of the employee during the
pendency of the proceedings challenging
the dismissal, the same requires to be
taken note of and the decision in Paul
Anthony case will apply. We, therefore,
hold that the appeal filed by the appellant
deserves to be allowed."
Another important observation rendered in the case of Ram
Lal (supra) would also be worth noting here:-
"12. However, if the charges
in the departmental enquiry and the
criminal court are identical or similar,
and if the evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same, then
the matter acquires a different dimension.
If the Court in judicial review concludes
that the acquittal in the criminal
proceeding was after full consideration
of the prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charge, the Court in judicial review can
grant redress in certain circumstances.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
The Court will be entitled to exercise its
discretion and grant relief, if is concludes
that allowing the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings to stand will be
unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case
will turn on its own facts."
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of learned Advocate for the respective parties and the
rulings discussed, hereinabove, this Court finds that apart
from the case of the petitioner is identical to Upendra Kumar
Singh, whose order of dismissal as well as the order passed by
the Appellate Authority came to be set aside, the law in this
regard is well settled that if the charges in the disciplinary
proceedings as well as judicial proceedings are one and
identical and the evidences and witnesses are same, in case of
acquittal in criminal case, if it is honourable, it shall have
material bearing over the departmental proceeding; and failure
to exercise the discretion will be unjust and unfair. Hence, this
Court finds substance in the writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in
identical term with the decision passed by the learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1989 of 2021.
11. The impugned orders as contained in Memo
No. 692/Ra.Ka. dated 04.03.2020 and Memo No. 1086/go.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11308 of 2022 dt.25-03-2025
dated 18.05.2020, as also the order dated 28.06.2022 passed
by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna are hereby set
aside.
12. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service
with all the consequential benefits from the date of order of
suspension.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 04.04.2025
Transmission Date
