IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.381 of 2009 Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh, son of Sheo Prasad Singh, resident of village-Khojagachhi, Police Station- Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura .. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director General of I.G.(Police), Bihar having his office at Old Secretariat, Patna 3. D.I.G. of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya 4. Superintendent of Police, Nawadah 5. Rajendra Singh, Police Inspector, Rajauli, Police Station-Rajauli Station- Rajauli, District Nawadah .. Respondents ----------- 4 12.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1771 of 2002 whereby the learned Single Judge having found that the appellant being a police constable involved in various criminal cases and also indiscipline, carelessness etc. and also causing injury to his fellow policeman, has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the order of dismissal on the ground that he was acquitted in a criminal case. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has tried to support his case relying upon the judgment 2 of the Apex Court rendered in the case of G.M. Tanak Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2006 SC 2129, but however, the learned Single Judge has held that as departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding were not barred on similar set of facts and evidence as such the judgment in the case of G.M. Tanak (supra) is not applicable in the case of the appellant. This is a case where the charges have already been framed on different sections of Indian Penal Code i.e. 324, 307, 147, 148 etc. Even though, contention is sought to be raised that he was acquitted from the criminal charges by the Court, but a bare perusal of the material placed before us, it appears that the appellant has not chosen to explain his bonafide before the disciplinary authority stating that as a criminal case is pending the departmental proceeding should be kept in abeyance. But however, even in the memorandum of appeal the ground raised in support of his case he did not disclose anything with regard to affording an opportunity by the 3 disciplinary authority by which inaction of the disciplinary authority is prejudiced to his right. In absence of such material, we are of the opinion that although charges are grievous in nature, the appellant cannot have any grievance with regard to pendency of the criminal cases. With the above observation, this appeal stands dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)