2026: JHHC:13067 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5133 of 2022 Ram Anugrah Prasad, CISF No. 843190360, Ex-HC/GD, Son of Sri Kedar Prasad, aged about 56 years, Resident of Village Panapur, P.O. & P.S. Danapur, District Patna. …Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, District New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), East Zone, Head Quarter, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, East Zone, Head Quarter, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S., Dhurwa, District Ranchi. …Respondents …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI CAV on: 08.04.2026 Pronounced on: 01.05.2026 J U D G M E N T 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- a. For direction upon the respondent authority for reinstating the petitioner at the post of head constable in CISF after quashing the order no. 6415 dated 06.06.2018 (Annexurre-8) passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the punishment of “dismissal from service” has been confirmed holding guilty under section 379/461 of the IPC in connection with Dhurwa P.S. case no. 121/2007 for offence under section 379/461 of the IPC, 2026: JHHC:13067 2 whereas the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge under section 379/461 of the IPC by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi, Jharkhand vide his order and judgement dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure-3) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 183/2015 (CNR-JHRN01-004479-2015). b. For direction upon the respondents to pay all consequential benefits such as back wages etc. the petitioner after quashing the Order No.6415dated 06.06.2018 [Annexure-8]. c. Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit to do proper and conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was recruited as constable in CISF on 12.10.1984 and after completion of his training, he was posted at various places and units of CISF. The petitioner was promoted to the post of head constable in the year 2007 and he was posted at CISF unit HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi. During the time when the petitioner was posted at CISF unit, HEC Dhruwa Ranchi, one FIR being Dhruva P.S. case no. 121/2007 dated 26.05.2007 was instituted against the petitioner for offence under section 379 and 461 of IPC alleging there in that after duty hours in the night of 25.05.2007 at about 2030 hrs, the petitioner entered inside 063 maintenance store for the purpose of committing theft and was caught by constable on duty, namely DD Singh and others, and accordingly ASI in charge of shift duty of CISF had launched a written complaint to this effect to local police Dhurwa. 4. The petitioner was suspended on the same day i.e. on 26.05.2007 vide office order no. 461 dated 26.05.2007. After suspension of the petitioner, a 2026: JHHC:13067 3 departmental proceeding was initiated and the following charge was framed against the petitioner:- “बल सं´या 843190360 ÿधान आर±क/जीडी आर॰ए॰ÿसाद, मु´यालय समवाय म¤ पदÖथ था। उसे इकाई ³वाटªर गाडª म¤ गाडª कमांडर कì हैिसयत से िदनांक 24.05.2007 को समय 0600 बजे से िदनांक 25.05.2007 को समय 0600 बजे तक तैनात िकया गया था और िदनांक 25.05.2007 को समय 0600 के उपरांत उसका 26.05.2007 ÿातः काल तक का रेÖट था। रेÖट के दौरान िदनांक 25.05.2007 के समय लगभग 2030 बजे एचईसी के ÿितबंिधत छेý म¤ चोरी के उĥेÔय से एचएमबीपी संयý के 063 Öटोर म¤ ÿवेश िकया, िजसे िĬतीय पाली के आर±क डी॰डी॰ िसंह जो 05 एवं 06 कमªशाला म¤ तैनात था, समय लगभग 2015 बजे 063 Öटोर म¤ देखा और उसने पास म¤ जाकर दूरभाष Ĭारा इसकì सूचना सउिन/ कायª एस॰ अंसारी (पाली ÿभारी) को िदया। सूचना पाकर पाली ÿभारी जीप के űाइवर मो॰ कलाम, आर±क गजेÆþ िसंह को लेकर घटना Öथल पर पहòचे और संयý म¤ कायªरत एचएमवीपी के कमªचाåरयŌ कì मदद से पकड़ िलया। पाली ÿभारी ®ी अंसारी ने उसे एफ़आईआर के साथ पुिलस को सुपुदª िकया। इस ÿकार ÿधान आर±क/कायª आर॰ ए॰ ÿसाद एचईसी के एचएमबीपी संयंý के ÿितबािधत छेý 063 Öटोर म¤ चोरी कì िनयत से घुस कर एचईसी के कमªचाåरयŌ कì ŀिĶ म¤ के ओसुबल कì ÿितķा को ढेस पहòचाया तथा इस इकाई के बल सदÖयŌ के मनोबल को नीचे िगरने का कायª िकया जो एक शľ बल का अनुशािसत बल सदÖय होने के नाते इस तरह का घोर दुराचरण करके बल कì छिव को धूिमल िकया। अतः आरोप है।“ 5. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and after the completion of the departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner was found guilty and punishment of “Dismissal from service” was passed vide order no. V-15014/RAP/Ad-III/Major-04/2008-379 dated 04.02.2008. The writ petitioner challenged the order dated 04.02.2008 by way of a departmental appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 11.04.2008. 6. Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings continued against the writ petitioner and vide judgment dated 24.08.2015, the writ petitioner was convicted under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for 2026: JHHC:13067 4 2 (two) year simple imprisonment. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 24.08.2015 which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2015. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi and the writ petitioner was acquitted from all charges. 7. The writ petitioner thereafter, gave a representation dated 18.01.2018 to the Respondent No. 3 for re-joining his services on the ground that the writ petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2015. In reply to the said letter, the writ petitioner was advised to file a revision against the order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition again filed representation dated 01.03.2018 which was treated as a revision. The said representation was rejected vide order no. V-11015/East/LC/Rev-08/2018-6415 dated 06.06.2018. 8. Per Contra, Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it was brought on record that the punishment order dated 04.02.2008 and the appellate order dated 11.04.2008 was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2716 of 2008 before the this Court and this Court vide order dated 27.07.2011 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, holding that there has been no discrimination and it is not a case of disproportionate punishment. 9. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2716 of 2008 by filing an intra court appeal which was registered as L.P.A. No. 291 of 2011 which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2012. The writ petitioner had also filed a Civil 2026: JHHC:13067 5 Review No. 75 of 2012 against the judgment dated 22.08.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 291 of 2011; however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2015. 10. It has been further stated that the order dated 06.06.2018 has been passed on the point of limitation as well as on merits. 11. Learned. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent while passing the order dated 06.06.2018, failed to take into consideration that he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings vide Judgment dated 16.11.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2015 and therefore the punishment order dated 04.02.2008 and appellate order dated 11.04.2008 should have been set aside and he should have been reinstated in service. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(S) No. 4529 of 2015, wherein the termination order was quashed on the basis of acquittal in the criminal proceedings. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, Ld. ASGI appearing for the Respondents submit that the facts in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(S) No. 4529 of 2015, is different to the facts in the present case. He further placed reliance on the punishment order dated 04.02.2008 to show that altogether 9 (nine) witnesses namely D.D. Singh (PW-1), Gajendra Singh (PW-2), Md. Kalam (PW-3), Bhola Mahto (PW-4), Ram Kumar Sahu (PW-5), U.P. Bhagat (PW-6), S. Ansari (PW-7), Anil Kumar (PW-8) and B Haldar (PW-9) were examined in the departmental proceedings. However, in the criminal proceedings, only 6 (six) witnesses 2026: JHHC:13067 6 namely Anil Kumar (PW-1), Biplav Haldar (PW-2), Munna Mahto (PW-3), Ram Hansda (PW-4), Saifuddin Ansari (PW-5) and Deen Dayal Singh (PW- 6) were examined. 13. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents that all the witness examined in the departmental proceedings were not examined in the criminal proceedings. Further, the Appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner as the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond the shadows of all reasonable doubts from the facts of the case and therefore it was not a case of honourable acquittal. 14. The Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Para 37 and 38 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111 wherein the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings have been discussed. 15. Having gone through the records of the case and hearing the parties, it is evident that the only ground raised by the writ petitioner for challenging the order dated 06.06.2018 is that since the writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings therefore, he should be exonerated in the departmental proceedings and should be reinstated in service. 16. The law is now no more res integra, inasmuch as, the burden of proof upon the prosecution in a criminal proceedings is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; however, in disciplinary proceedings, the burden upon the department is limited and requires the case to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. 2026: JHHC:13067 7 17. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that all the witnesses examined in the departmental proceedings were not examined in the criminal proceedings. Further, the acquittal of the writ petitioner is not an honorary acquittal. In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(S) No. 4529 of 2015, relied upon by the writ petitioner, the facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same; however, the same is not the case in the instant matter. Furthermore, the charge against the writ petitioner in the criminal and the departmental proceedings is also not the same as in the criminal proceeding, the charge was of theft and dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property; however, in the departmental proceedings, the charge was of misconduct. 18. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is of the view that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. According, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stand closed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 01 /05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 05.05.2026