PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2.This petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner has been terminated and also challenged the order dated 05.03.2020 and 14.11.2022, Annexure nos. 6 and 8 respectively whereby and whereunder the appeal and memorial preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.12.2018 mobile phone of the petitioner got misplaced, therefore he lodged a formal complaint at Railway police station vide Annexure-2. On 12.12.2018, the petitioner was on escort duty and during his duty he felt ill seriously, therefore he was treated by the doctor and advised to take complete bed rest for the period of 20 days. Subsequently, on 13.12.2018 one Shrikant Kumar Sah lodged an FIR against the petitioner mentioning the name of the petitioner as Dhiraj Pal, on the basis of the said FIR under Sections 377, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(b) of the POCSO Act have been registered in the Police Station at Katihar as Rail Kisanganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2018.

4. On the basis of the said FIR, the departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and the chargesheet (Annexure-P/4) has been issued to the petitioner with list of documents and list of witnesses. The enquiry officer on its enquiry report dated 27.09.2019 arrived at the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal which has been also affirmed by the higher authority by deciding appeal as well as memorial preferred by the petitioner and hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the material witness that is complainant Shrikant Kumar Sah as well as eye witness of the said incident namely Vishwajeet Kumar Yadav were not made witness during course of enquiry nor examined by the enquiry officer. In spite of that only on the basis of statement of formal witnesses i.e. police officials, the enquiry officer arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found true. Learned counsel further submits that after full-fleged trial, vide judgment dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure-9), petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He further submits that this fact has been brought into the knowledge to the authority by submission of memorial but authority did not consider this aspect of the matter. Since in the departmental enquiry, there is no legal evidence available against the petitioner, the finding as arrived by the enquiry officer is not in accordance with evidence available on record. Therefore, on the basis of said enquiry report, all the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTA0MTUjMjAyMyMxI04=-239qIMbfAFc=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.