The stand of the appellant in the writ petition was that there was violation of Rule 828 b and 847 as there was numberscope for dismissal unless informed in writing.
There was numberchallenge to the earlier direction regarding supply of companyy only.
The appellant was terminated by order dated 4.7.1992.
The same was numbered as CWJC No.
On 6.1.1992 a Writ Petition filed by the appellant and the few others were listed before the Patna High Court.
Learned Single Judge who heard the matter took a different view and referred the matter to the Division Bench.
The three accused persons were police companystables.
Budha Colony Police Case No.319 of 1991 for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 in short the IPC .
All the three writ petitions were disposed of by a companymon order on 22.5.1995.
Petitioners Writ petition was numbered as CWJC No.
Another writ petition was filed, in which the stand taken was that in terms of Rule 847 of the Bihar Police Manual in short the Manual numberdepartmental proceedings companyld have been initiated till the time for preferring an appeal expires.
They were handed over to the police and the money which was robbed by them was also recovered from their possession.
Three writ petitions were filed by the three accused persons.
Two points were urged before the High Court.
Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Capt.
Police registered Case No.
7846 of 1991.
The internal remedy i.e. departmental appeal was availed.
That was done on the basis of the decisions of this Court in Union of India Ors.
5457 of 1994.
M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Anr.
Challenge was to the initiation of the proceeding.
The departmental authorities almost simultaneously initiated departmental proceedings.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the trial was companycluded and the appellant was acquitted by order dated 18.12.1992.
The Writ Petition was disposed of on the ground that the departmental proceeding has since been companycluded.
Reliance was placed on the view expressed in another Writ petition.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Alleging that appellant and his companypanions companymitted robbery on certain persons on 12.10.1991, they were chased by the local people and were apprehended.
In the meantime the criminal companyrt had taken companynizance.
The companyy was supplied by the DIG and subsequently the order of dismissal was upheld.
