acquittal, and in the disciplinary proceedings, the

preponderance of probabilities have been taken into

consideration, therefore, no case was made out for

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that

the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that there

was a serious lapse in the procedure adopted by the

respondents, namely, that firstly, the enquiry was conducted

when the appellant was in judicial custody inside jail and the

victim Nitesh Kumar was not examined as a witness. Further,

it is submitted that the victim and his father, both, had

practically turned hostile in the criminal case resulting in the

acquittal of the appellant which was on the ground of no

evidence at all. It is further submitted that even the medical

examination of the victim was not carried out and it was on
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
4/10

mere hearsay that the entire prosecution was conducted which

ended in a clean acquittal of the appellant which has been

erroneously treated to be not an honourable acquittal by the

learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel has then invited the attention

of the Court that even in the evidence which was brought

forth during the enquiry proceedings, there was no material to

establish that there was any witness to testify the actual

incident. Neither the father of the victim Binod Mahto nor the

Station House Officer who took the appellant into custody

were witnesses to the alleged incident, and in spite of the

statement having been recorded by the enquiry officer without

there being an element of any proof to establish the guilt

against the appellant, the enquiry officer proceeded to

conclude a finding merely on the basis of apprehensions

which does not fall within the realm of preponderance of

probabilities. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that not

only there was a procedural lapse but even otherwise the very

factum of the incident as alleged stood dissolved with the

acquittal of the appellant by the Trial Court, the judgement

whereof was brought on record through a supplementary

affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge.
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
5/10

6. Learned counsel for the State, however, on the

other hand, submitted with the aid of paragraph 17 of the

counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge that the

enquiry had been conducted in the presence of the appellant

and he had full opportunity, but during cross-examination the

appellant failed to come out with any suggestion or any

question so as to demolish the statement of Binod Mahto the

father of the victim who had been examined during the

disciplinary proceedings. It is also submitted that as a matter

of fact, the Investigating Officer, who was a complainant, had

not been examined during the criminal trial, but his statement

was recorded during disciplinary proceedings that proves the

incident.

7. Additionally, it has been urged that the

appellant had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before

the higher authority against the termination order and,

therefore, the writ petition even otherwise did not deserve to

be entertained on the ground of availability of alternative

remedy.

8. We have gone through the records and the

submissions raised.

9. The first issue is with regard to the question of
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
6/10

lapse of any procedure. In this regard, we find that the victim

was not examined during the enquiry proceedings even

though the victim Nitesh Kumar had been examined during

the criminal trial. His father was examined during the

disciplinary proceedings where he did depose about his son

having informed him about the alleged incident, but the

victim who testified before the Criminal Court completely

denied the occurrence of any such incident. Not only this, the

father also was unable to substantiate the allegations and to

the contrary gave a vague statement while being orally

examined before the Trial Court.

10. On a comparison of these two statements, it is

evident that there was hardly any evidence with regard to the

incident except for the allegations made by the father. In such

a situation, the question of the possibility of the incident

having taken place and the probability thereof has to be

examined. A possibility does have options, but a probability

has to be based on some material that weighs in the mind of

the person to form an opinion which is more than a

possibility.

11. In the instant case, the defence taken by the

appellant in his reply to the show cause notices is clearly to
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
7/10

the effect that the Station House Officer who had lodged the

complaint and had also initiated the prosecution, was bearing

animosity with him, and which fact stands substantiated by

the statement of the father of the victim before the Trial Court.

12. In our considered opinion, with the aforesaid

background and the evidence, it cannot be said that there was

a preponderance of the probability of the incident, and in the

absence of any concrete evidence, the conclusion drawn by

the enquiry officer resulting in its acceptance by the

disciplinary authority does not appear to be supportable in

law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in our opinion,

committed an error in arriving at the abrupt conclusion of the

absence of any procedural flaw and in further arriving at the

conclusion that there was a preponderance of probability.

Neither the relevant witness namely the victim was examined

during enquiry nor did the learned Single Judge consider the

real impact of the trial Court judgement.

13. It is well settled that in the exercise of the

there cannot be a re-appreciation of the evidence, but it is

equally settled that if the enquiry proceedings and the

conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority suffer from
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
8/10

perversity, the same calls for an interference by this Court. In

our considered opinion, in the absence of any concrete

evidence, the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer as well

as by the disciplinary authority suffered from an inherent

infirmity that touches perversity. Consequently, the learned

Single Judge was not justified in refusing to exercise

discretion in the matter.

14. Apart from this, there is one peculiar fact

which also ought to have been taken into account while

assessing the preponderance of probability, namely, once the

appellant had been acquitted and it was on record that he was

almost 57 years of age at the time of the incident, there was a

greater probability of his false implication and which aspect

does not appear to have been taken into account in spite of a

specific defence having been taken by the appellant in this

regard in the reply to the show cause notices. Non-

consideration of relevant material also amounts to perversity

which is also clearly evident from the facts of the present case

inasmuch as this defence of the appellant does not appear to

have been taken into consideration either by the enquiry

officer, the disciplinary authority or even by the learned

Single Judge.

Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
9/10

15. Consequently, for all the reasons stated

hereinabove, we find that the termination of the services of

the appellant suffers from the vice of procedural lapses as

well as an infirm decision which cannot be sustained in law.

The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. We,

accordingly, set aside the judgment of the learned Single

Judge dated 05th December, 2017, allow the writ petition

being CWJC No.11122 of 2014, and quash the termination

order dated 19th September, 2013 passed by the Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur.

16. It is evident from the affidavit on record that

the appellant was about 57 years of age at the time of the

incident and, therefore, by now he must have attained the age

of superannuation. Consequently, the appellant shall be

entitled to his full salary up to the date he attained his age of

superannuation and shall also be entitled to such

consequential post retiral benefits that may be admissible to

him in accordance with law. The entire payments to which he

may be found entitled and also entitled in future shall be

calculated by the respondents and an order be passed to that

effect within one month from the date of production of a

certified copy of this order. The payments due shall be
Patna High Court LPA No.105 of 2018 dt.03-12-2018
10/10

released forthwith thereafter.

17. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ)

(Anjana Mishra, J)
Sunil/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N. A.
Uploading Date 04.12.2018
Transmission Date