DEOKI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition originally was filed for quashing of the order of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner by the Commandant B.M.P. 9 dated 4.10.94 as well as the order passed by the D.G.P. dated 16.11.1995 and the order passed on the memorial of the petitioner, by the Government dated 18.8.1997 which was communicated under Memo No. 11732 dated 22.12.1997.

(2.) The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present writ application are as follows:--

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur on 17.2.1972 and on 23.3.1993 he was issued charge-sheet with regard to acts of misconduct against him allegedly taking place on 9.3.1993 by which it was stated that he had abused various police officers in the family quarters under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner was also suspended. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was also issued on 17.5.1993 which also basically refers to the same sequence of events though some further details were also included in the same. As per the charge-sheet dated 23.3.1993, departmental proceeding No. 8/93 came into being whereas upon the charge-sheet dated 17.5.1993, departmental proceeding No. 14 of 1993 was initiated. The petitioner appeared in the enquiry and in the departmental proceeding No. 8/93 and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of such charges. However, in the enquiry report of departmental proceeding No. 14 of 1993, the enquiry officer opined that the said proceedings should be stayed since in effect the charges were the same with the only difference being that more details of the same sequence of events have been included. The commandant B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur finally by his order dated 4.10.94 passed final order in the departmental proceeding No. 8 of 1993 by which the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years, being equivalent to three black marks. He was also given a last warning that if in future he indulges in such activity then he would be dismissed from service. It was further stipulated that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any payment for the suspension period except what had already been given to him.