JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 2614
1. Petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 141 dated 19.1.2005, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby and where under he has been dismissed from service (Annexure-9) and has prayed for consequential reliefs.
2. The relevant facts in short are as follows. One Amar Nath Rai, the then officer-in-charge of Dhanbad Police Station made a report to the Superintendent of Police on 23.3.1994 that he received confidential information on 22.3.1994 that on 20.3.1999 Asstt. Sub inspector, Laljee Mishra did not take any action against the offenders when he learnt about transaction of the looted oil on Truck, after taking heavy amount. Petitioner, who was Sub Inspector, also went with Laljee Mishra. The purchaser of oil informed that Laljee Mishra talked with seller and took money. It was admitted by the petitioner that he went with Laljee Mishra, but he said that Laljee Mishra talked with the offenders and took money. Laljee Mishra accepted his guilt and produced Rs. 20,000/- which was seized in presence of Sub Inspector-Anil Kumar and constable-Rabindra Kumar Singh. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Laljee Mishra, for serious misconduct.
3. The charge against the petitioner was that he went with Laljee Mishra from police station, without informing the officer-in-charge and without lodging any Sanha when they received information about unloading of looted oil from truck. Petitioner tried to Page 2615 save the offenders and tried to suppress evidence. In the departmental enquiry, petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. The punishing authority passed order of dismissal. The appellate authority confirmed the same.
Against the said orders, he filed a writ petition being WPS No. 6399 of 2002, which was disposed of on 18.6.2003. This Court observed that it was not proper and legal on the part of the Enquiry Officer to use the statements of Amar Nath Rai and Anil Kumar without supplying the same to the petitioner and without producing them for evidence. The Court held that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were quashed. It was directed that the copies of the statements be provided to the petitioner and the enquiry be conducted afresh. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was conducted and the petitioner was again found guilty. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and after considering the contentions of the petitioner, passed order of his dismissal.
4. Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court was not followed; and that petitioner has been prejudiced by non-examination of Amar Nath Rai and Anil Kumar; and that he has been acquitted in the criminal case; and that all the allegations are against Laljee Mishra.
5. State counsel submitted that several attempts were made for examination of Amar Nath Rai and Anil Kumar and as such orders could not be passed within the time limit fixed by this Court. He further submitted that Amar Nath Rai had taken voluntary retirement and settled somewhere and Anil Kumar was transferred to Bihar. He further submitted that petitioner has not been prejudiced and his acquittal in criminal case will not wipe out his serious misconduct.
6. The said explanation for delay in passing orders beyond the time limit fixed by this Court, is satisfactory.
7. In my opinion, petitioner has not suffered prejudice as alleged. He admitted in his letter that-on 20.3.1994 at about 21.30 hrs Laljee Mishra look him on the pretext of some urgent work-thereafter, Laljee Mishra went somewhere and kept him waiting,-Laljee Mishra returned after about 45 minutes and said that work is done and then they returned,-on 22.3.1994, he learnt that Laljee Mishra did not take action against the offenders indulging in transaction of looted truck with oil after taking handsome amount. Thus, petitioner clearly admitted that he went with Laljee Mishra. Petitioner was Sub-Inspector and was senior to Laljee Mishra, who was Assistant Sub-Inspector. Rs. 20,000/- was produced by Laljee Mishra and it was seized by the officer-in-charge Amar Nath Rai in presence of two police personnel namely Anil Kumar and Rabindra Singh. One of the seizure witness-Rabindra Singh has been examined and cross-examined by the petitioner, in the fresh departmental proceeding. Moreover, the statement of Amar Nath Rai was one of the Exts. Thus, in view of the petitioner’s admission that he went with Laljee Mishra, and examination of one of the witnesses before whom, the illegal money was produced by Laljee Mishra, it cannot be accepted that petitioner has been prejudiced due to non-examination of Amar Nath Rai, who reported the matter to the Superintendent of police and Anil Kumar the other seizure witness.
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, (Cabinet Vigilance Department) who conducted the earlier enquiry, was also examined and cross-examined by the Page 2616 petitioner in the fresh proceeding. Petitioner was found guilty again in the fresh proceeding. Second show-cause notice was issued to him. After considering the entire matter, the punishing authority passed order of dismissal against the petitioner. The Punishing authority considered all the points raised by the petitioner before him and found them not tanable.
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that petitioner admitted that he went with Laljee Mishra at the place of occurrence. Production of illegal money by Laljee Mishra has been proved. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges against the petitioner has not been proved or that he has suffered any prejudice. In the case of Bhupindra Pal Singh , relied by Mr. Pathak, the situation was different.
8. It appears that petitioner was charged under Section 201/34 IPC but he was acquitted on 8.4.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 103 A/95 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Dhanbad as prosecution did not produce any material witness of the charge sheet. Petitioner cannot take advantage of his acquittal. It is well settled that the scope and the standard of proof are different in a departmental proceeding and in a criminal case. The serious misconduct alleged and proved, could not be the subject matter of the criminal case.
9. The scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction in such matters is very limited. I do not find any fault with the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner or the order of punishment passed against him.
10. In the result, this application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.