2025:JHHC:28309 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2068 of 2020 --------- Sanjay Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Sushil Prasad Singh, resident of village Mohanpur, P.O. Ram Chandrapur, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai (Bihar). ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, H.E.C. Township, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijeet Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V --------- 11/Dated:-16.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s or order/s in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision contained in Memo No. 01(B) dated 01.01.2020 (Annexure-16) passed by the Respondents-Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand whereby and where- under in purported compliance of this Hon'ble Court's order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6081/2015, the major punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the Petitioner has been substituted by another major punishment of compulsory retirement; (ii) Upon quashing of the order dated 01.01.2020 (Annexure-16), the Petitioner consequently prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s or order/s directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back-wages and continuity in service alongwith all other consequential benefits; 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the same set of charge, firstly, an FIR was lodged and a criminal case was instituted and only after that; the Departmental Proceeding was 2025:JHHC:28309 2 initiated by giving the charge sheet on 28.12.2012. Thereafter, in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was punished with the order of removal from service. However, in the criminal case, he has been acquitted and subsequently, in appeal, his order of dismissal was converted into order of compulsory retirement which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that when on the same set of charges, the Criminal Court has acquitted this petitioner, the order of departmental proceeding should not sustain; accordingly, the impugned order should be quashed. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that in the entire departmental proceeding, no independent witness has been examined and all the witnesses which have been examined were police personnel and he reiterated that when in the criminal case, which was the root cause of the departmental proceeding has been decided in favour of the petitioner; in other words, the petitioner has not be convicted; rather acquitted, there was no sense in punishing the petitioner in departmental proceeding. He referred to the judgment rendered in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 wherein in similar facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held the case to be of no evidence. In the instant case also, when the Court of competent jurisdiction has acquitted this petitioner, the order of dismissal which was subsequently converted into order of compulsory retirement is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2025:JHHC:28309 3 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the law is no more res integra that the departmental proceeding progresses on preponderance of probabilities and not on the strict proof like in criminal case, but learned counsel could not dispute the fact that in criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted. Learned counsel could also not dispute the fact that the root cause for initiating the departmental proceeding was the criminal case in which the petitioner has been acquitted. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it transpires from bare perusal of the charge sheet and the prosecution case wherein the petitioner was made accused, the cause of action was altercation at Booty More, Ranchi wherein one person was injured by indiscriminate firing by the police personnel. The criminal case was initiated by lodging an FIR which was finally converted in Sessions Trial Case No. 686 of 2014. From perusal of the judgment passed in the criminal case, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has given reference of one prosecution witness i.e. PW-4:Firoj Ansari and given the finding “Further deposed that accused Sanjay Singh was not present at the place of occurrence”. The same fact has been reiterated in internal page 6 wherein there is a reference “Further PW-4 Firoj Ansari cousin brother of informant has deposed that accused Sanjay Kumar was not present at the place of occurrence which contradicts evidence of the informant regarding participation 2025:JHHC:28309 4 of Sanjay Singh in the occurrence”. Finally, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the petitioners from the charges levelled against them. 8. Thus, the FIR which was lodged against this petitioner culminated in his acquittal and in the departmental proceeding the charge sheet was issued on 28.12.2012. It is an admitted case that the root cause of departmental proceeding was the FIR lodged against the petitioner and other persons for the same fight at Booty More, Ranchi. From the Inquiry report, it further transpires that almost all the witnesses in the departmental proceeding are police personnel. Normally, there is no wrong in it in view of the fact that the petitioner belongs to a police service and the cause of action for initiation of charge sheet was also altercation at a particular place where there was indiscriminate firing which assaulted a person. However, at this Stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here that on the one hand, no independent witness has been examined in the departmental proceeding and the witnesses who were examined were police personnel and in the criminal case also the witnesses were police personnel and in the criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted, inasmuch as, the learned Sessions Judge has given categorical reference with regard to this petitioner that he was not present at the place of occurrence. 9. In the case of G.M. Tank (supra) the Hon’ble Apex 2025:JHHC:28309 5 Court has held in Para-20 as under: “20. It is thus seen that this is a case of no evidence. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that the appellant is guilty of having illegally accumulated excess income by way of gratification. The respondent failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant being a public servant used to submit his yearly property return relating to his movable and immovable property and the appellant has also submitted his return in the year 1975 showing his entire movable and immovable assets. No query whatsoever was ever raised about the movable and immovable assets of the appellant. In fact, the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of and/or about the alleged charges levelled against the appellant. Likewise, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the alleged charges punishable under the provisions of the PC Act on the same set of facts and evidence. It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts and evidence. The appellant has been honourably acquitted by the competent court on the same set of facts, evidence and witness and, therefore, the dismissal order based on the same set of facts and evidence on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.” 10. As a matter of fact, the law is no more res integra that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Inquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. As stated hereinabove, the cause of Charge-sheet was a criminal offence for which a criminal case was lodged and none of independent witness has been examined; resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner; as such, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the instant case is a case of no evidence. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 01(B) dated 01.01.2020 (Annexure-16), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith but in no case beyond a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. Other 2025:JHHC:28309 6 consequential benefits including 50% of the back wages shall also be extended to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 vikas/- AFR/NAFR