IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1021 of 2008 BIPIN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE- NIMA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST ZONE, BHAGALPUR 5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA ******* For the Appellant :- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate Mr. Nishant Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. S.P. Tripathy, S.C.-7 ************ 2 19/01/2009 Writ petitioner- appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1205 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner- appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was constable in the Bihar Police. He was dismissed from service and the appeal preferred by him against the said order of dismissal did not yield any result. Thereafter, he challenged the order of dismissal and the appellate order by filing a writ application before this Court, which was also dismissed. Against that he preferred L. P. A. No. 1123 of 2002 before this Court and by order dated 18.11.2002 the appeal was disposed of with the following observations: “After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that this Letters Patent Appeal can be disposed of with the simple direction that if the appellant, accused in both the - 2 - criminal matters (relating to murder charges) is acquitted he can make an application to the department for recall of the order and for his reinstatement on the grounds inter alia that the very foundation of his dismissal stands removed, therefore, he should be taken back in the services.” Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trials and after acquittal filed application before the authorities of the department for recall of the order of dismissal and for reinstatement. The said prayer of the petitioner was considered by the disciplinary authority and by order dated 21st July, 2006 same was rejected. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority took into consideration the factum of acquittal of the petitioner in the two criminal cases but having found that the petitioner is a member of a criminal gang, it would be inexpedient to reinstate him in service. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ application. Mr. Puskar Narain Shahi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the allegation made against the petitioner has been wiped out on account of his acquittal in the criminal cases and as such the authority ought to have recalled the order of dismissal and reinstated him in service. In support of the submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the - 3 - Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Sharma and others, Appellants V. State of Madhya Pradesh, Respondent reported in AIR 1976 SC 133. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Shahi and the decision relied on in no way supports his contention. The petitioner was not dismissed from service on account of his conviction in the criminal cases. During investigation of the criminal case, the misconduct of the petitioner surfaced and it was found that he belongs to a criminal gang. In that view of the matter mere acquittal of the petitioner will not entitle him to be reinstated in service. It is relevant here to state that while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in service the disciplinary authority had considered the fatum of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases. Mr. Shahi, then contends that in view of the observation of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner giving liberty to file application for recall of the order of removal and for reinstatement, disciplinary authority was obliged to reinstate him in service. The Division Bench of this court, while disposing of the appeal had not directed the disciplinary authority to reinstate the petitioner in service in case he is acquitted in the trial. It had only observed that if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges, he may pray for reinstatement in service. As stated earlier, the petitioner, in the light of the observation of this Court, filed representation which - 4 - was considered and while doing so his acquittal in the two criminal cases have also been taken note of and the circumstances in which he was acquitted. In such circumstances petitioner was not entitled to be reinstated in service merely on his acquittal. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while passing the impugned order. We do not find any merit in the appeal, it is dismissed in limine accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin