IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6836 of 2011 Bipin Bihari Sharma, Son of late Karu Singh, Resident of Village Kandaul, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jehanabad…………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Home Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General and Inspector general of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Rail, Sonpur. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna……………………………………Respondents ----------- 2 27.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of various orders by which, on conclusion of departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from service and his memorial was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that against the said orders, petitioner had moved this Court and upto the Apex Court but was unsuccessful. However, he submits that for identical charge for which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was dismissed from service, a criminal case was also instituted. After he lost 2 from the Apex Court, the criminal case has been concluded and petitioner has been acquitted. Hence, he submits that, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paulanthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Javed Shoukat Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 552, respondents are required to reconsider as to whether his punishment order is fit to be recalled as he has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding for identical charge. He submits that charge nos. 2 to 5 in the charge sheet were apparently only in respect of his past history which were mentioned therein for the purpose of consideration for awarding punishment to him if the petitioner was found guilty of charge no.1. He submits that this has been noticed and held as such by this Court in its order dated 09.01.2006 passed in CWJC No. 8234 of 2004. Hence, it was charge no.1 for which petitioner was found guilty and punishment was awarded and charge no.1 was identical 3 to the charge for which he has been acquitted. Since criminal proceeding is more elaborate one, the acquittal in the same will have an effect on punishment awarded to him in the proceeding on identical charge as laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this aspect of the matter is required to be considered by the Director General of Police in the light of the aforesaid judgments. He submits that for this purpose, he has already filed a representation before the Director General of Police, a copy whereof is Annexure-14. He submits that the writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police to consider his representation, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, and to pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a 4 direction to the Director General or the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna, before whom the representation may be pending, to consider representation of petitioner, examine his case in the light of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as he may deem fit and appropriate, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)