JAVED SHOUKAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his dismissal from service passed by respondent No. 4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi in a departmental proceeding No. 89/94 and also the orders dated 13.5.98 and 27.3.99 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the appellate and revisional authorities respectively who have affirmed the order of punishment of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the post of literate constable at Chaibasa, Police Force, in Jan., 1992 and was working to the satisfaction of all concerned since 1992. During the relevant time, in the year 1993, he was assigned with the job of body guard of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. On 13.10.93 an F.I.R. was lodged at the Gumla Police Station by one Shailesh Kr. Singh alleging, inter alia, that his sister, namely, Anita Kumari was kidnapped by one Umair Khan, a driver of the Bus. In course of investigation it was found that an offence under section 376 of the Penal Code was committed and the involvement of the petitioner also came to light. On completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioner also under Sections 363, 366A and 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the charge sheet submitted in the criminal case, a departmental proceeding was also initiated simultaneously against the petitioner alleging exactly the same charge. A copy of the memo of charge has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application from which it appears that along with the memo of charge a copy of the F.I.R. investigation report and the statement of the girl recorded under Sec. 164, Crimial P.C. were enclosed. The petitioner filed his show cause and denied the charges levelled against him and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in as much as there was no occasion for the petitioner to stay at Gumla during the relevant period as he was posted at Khunti. The petitioner fully participated in the departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence of the witnesses and submitted his inquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. On the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner then filed departmental appeal and then revision before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively but both the appeal and the revision were rejected and the order of punishment was upheld.