SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.06.2008 of the Division Bench of the Harahan High Court in L.P.A. No. 176 of 2008 (for short the impugned order).

(3.) The facts very briefly are that the Appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Bihar State Police on 07.08.1971 and he was later on promoted to the post of Head Constable (Hamada). On 04.07.2004, a complaint was lodged in the Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station that three unknown persons had snatched a car, which was registered as Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 139 of 2004 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the I.P.C.). The police recovered the stolen car on 13.07.2004 from the government quarters occupied by the Appellant and arrested the son of the Appellant, Raju Shukla @ Rajiv Shukla alongwith two others who were involved in the theft of the car. The Appellant was suspended and a memo of charges was served on him on 20.07.2004 charging him with the misconduct of negligence, indiscipline, conduct unbecoming of a police personnel. It was also alleged that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla. He was asked to submit his explanation. The Appellant submitted his reply on 26.07.2004 to the Superintendent of Police, Purvi Singhbhoom, Jamshedpur (for short the disciplinary authority) stating inter alias that in the evening of 12.07.2004 he had been to Tulailadugri T.O.P. for duty and he was patrolling in that area the whole night and that when he returned to his government quarters in the morning around 6:15 a.m. on 13.07.2004, he saw the police of Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station at his government quarters, who had arrested his son alongwith two others, and had seized the stolen Matiz car. He also stated in his reply that he did not get any time to question his son and that he had No. idea that his son was involved in the crime. The enquiry officer then carried out the enquiry and submitted his report holding the Appellant guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority after considering enquiry report took the view that in the circumstances it was not reasonable that the Appellant should serve the police force and passed an order of dismissal against him. The Appellant carried an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, Singhbhoom, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, but the same was also rejected.