S.K. Katriar, J.@mdashNone appears on behalf of the parties.
2. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 5031 of 1999 has preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2004, whereby his dismissal from Bihar Police Service has been upheld, and the writ petition has been dismissed.
3. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellant herein was initially appointed as a constable in the Bihar Police Service. At the relevant point of time, he was serving as Havildar and was deputed as personal Bodyguard of an Ex. M.L.A. A criminal case was started, and a departmental proceeding was initiated, against the petitioner with respect to the same occurrence. It is alleged that on 02.08.1993, at about 9.30 A.M., the appellant had gone to a village neighbouring that of the Ex. M.L.A., and had fired from his government revolver at a child, namely, Deepak Kumar, son of Satya Narain Kushwaha, aged about 3 years, who sustained injuries and ultimately died. Piprasi P.S. Case No. 36 of 1993, under Sections 324/308 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, was registered against the petitioner, and he was ultimately acquitted in the trial.
4. It was accepted in the departmental proceedings that he had developed illicit relationship with the younger daughter of Satya Narain Kushwa and he used to go to that village to meet her. He had fired at the boy because he was obstructing his nefarious activities. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and found him guilty. His appeal was also dismissed, leading to the present writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5031 of 19999, which was dismissed by the impugned order.
5. We have perused the materials and the submissions on record. Law is well settled that the scope of judicial review with respect to the departmental proceeding is narrow. It is not a Court of appeal. This Court has to satisfy itself that charge-sheet was served on the delinquent employee, the prescribed procedure was followed, the principles of natural justice were observed, and punishment consistent with the gravity of the proven charges has been inflicted upon him. It appears to us on a perusal of the impugned order that no grievance with respect to that aspects of the matter.
6. It was first contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Law is well settled that on the self same facts, parallel proceedings can be taken in a criminal court as well as departmentally and the result of one may not affect the result of the other, because the standard of proof in the two proceedings are different. It applies with greater force in the present case because the accused was a member of the Bihar Police Force, the police was the investigator as well as the prosecutor in the criminal trial, and had to produce the prosecution witnesses. Secondly, the charges have been well proved in a duly constituted departmental proceeding.
7. The appellant had also contended before the learned Single Judge that the punishment is excessive. The contention is stated only to be rejected. In view of the gravity of the proven charges, coupled with the fact that he is a member of the uniformed service, the punishment of dismissal from service is the only appropriate punishment. We entirely agree with the view of the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Birendra Prasad Verma, J.
I agree.
