IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1205 of 2007 BIPIN KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIMA, POLICE STATION DHANARUA, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.DEPUTY SUSPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 3.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 4.DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, EAST ZONE, BHAGALPUR 5.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 29.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was a constable in the police force of Bhagalpur district. On 29.9.1998 he proceeded on casual leave for four days but did not report on 4.10.1998 because he was named as an accused in a case in Patna district on 5.10.1998 and was arrested in that case i.e. Dhanarua PS Case No.87/98 under section 302/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. He was also an accused in an earlier case bearing Dhanarua PS Case No.139/92 for similar offences. Police found the involvement of the petitioner in those cases to be true and that he was an active member of a criminal gang known as Pandav Gang. He was chargesheeted in both the cases. On account of those facts, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subjected to a departmental enquiry. In the light of materials 2 available against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding and considering that he had been chargesheeted in two cases for serious offences of murder as a member of a criminal gang, he was dismissed from service by order dated 18.8.2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur in the light of enquiry report submitted against him. The petitioner challenged his dismissal vide order dated 18.8.2001 through a writ petition bearing CWJC No.7970 of 2002 which was dismissed on 17.7.2002 by order contained in Annexure-3. Against that order petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No.1123 of 2002 which was dismissed on 18.11.2002 vide Annexure-4. The order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure-4) shows that the Division Bench did not go into merits of the petitioner’s case and did not interfere with the order of the learned single Judge dismissing his writ petition and only on submission of the counsel for the petitioner that so long as criminal cases are pending, no enquiry could be initiated against the appellant or if an enquiry was initiated the same should have remained suspended, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal with a simple direction that if the appellant is acquitted in both the criminal cases then he can make an application to the department for recall of the order of dismissal and for his 3 reinstatement on the ground that the very foundation for his dismissal stands removed and, therefore, he should be taken back in service. It is noticed that in the said order there was no direction on the disciplinary authority to reinstate the petitioner upon his acquittal. Only a liberty was granted to the petitioner that he can make an application for recall of the order of dismissal. Petitioner has annexed the two judgments whereby he along with other accused persons has been acquitted in both the criminal cases because the court was helpless in view of the fact that that all the material witnesses turned hostile. While rejecting petitioner’s application for reinstatement vide impugned order dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure-8), the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur has noticed the relevant facts including the observation of the Division Bench and has then expressed his opinion that it was not possible to allow the petitioner to continue in service as a constable when after proper investigation chargesheet had been submitted against him on the basis of materials which indicate that he was involved in those murders and that he was a member of a notorious criminal gang. On its face the submission that petitioner should be taken back in service after his acquittal in both the criminal 4 cases looks attractive. However, on careful appreciation of materials, it is found that petitioner was not dismissed from service on the basis of a finding that he was guilty of charge of murder in two different cases but the dismissal was based upon the fact that in two serious cases petitioner had been chargesheeted by the police. The unsuitability of the petitioner to continue in police force which requires persons of clean character and image, led to the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The consideration that after investigation police found sufficient materials to chargesheet him also and he was subjected to a trial, was the ground for dismissing the petitioner from the post of a constable in police force. The judgments in both the trials were noticed by the SP, Bhagalpur in the impugned order and he noticed that in both the cases material witnesses had turned hostile. The inference drawn by the SP, Bhagalpur on this account also is a permissible inference in a departmental proceeding. Had the two trials related to same very allegations which were subject matter of departmental proceeding, the matter could have been different but the departmental proceeding in the present case was rightly not for the offence of murder but on the ground of petitioner being a man of bad image not befitting for police force. 5 On a proper consideration of all the materials and submissions, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk