DULARCHAND MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner, who earlier served as Chaukidar, has filed this writ petition challenging the order bearing Memo No. 69 dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 whereunder he has been restrained from serving as Chaukidar on the ground of long absence of 14 years from duty.

(3.) It is submitted en behalf of the petitioner that after the death of his grandfather, he was appointed as Awaji Chaukidar in the year 1985. In 1987, he was punished by serving Form-G directing him to deposit a fine of Rs. 15/-. Deposit of the aforesaid amount was not accepted by the Officer-in-charge, Ekma P.S. although petitioner continued to represent for acceptance of the amount before the Officer-in-charge and the superior authorities. In the light of his representation, notice bearing Memo No. 652 dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-2 fixing 30.8.2001 as the date for hearing his case by the District Magistrate, Saran was also issued. In compliance of the direction contained in the notice dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-2, petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate, Saran and contended before him that Officer-in-charge is not accepting the amount of fine in the light of the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Saran contained in letter No. 2047 dated 1.11.1988 and the subsequent instructions of the Police Inspector, Ekma Police Station contained in letter No. 1/89 dated 4.1.1989, Annexure-1. The matter remained pending before the authorities and petitioner had to file C.W.J.C. No. 2259 of 2004, which was disposed of under order dated 16.10.2004 taking into account the notice issued to the petitioner for personal hearing dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-2 directing the District Magistrate, Saran to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the matter. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 16.10.2004, the impugned order bearing Memo No. 69 dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 has been passed holding that petitioner remained absent for 14 years after imposition of the fine on the petitioner and on the ground of long absence, he has not been allowed to join the post of Chaukidar. Counsel for the petitioner challenged order dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 on the ground that while passing the said order, the authorities failed to consider the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Saran dated 1.11.1988 as also the instruction of Police Inspector, Ekma dated 4.1.1989 to accept the deposit of fine from the petitioner. In this connection, it was pointed out that Officer-in-charge, Ekma P.S. continued to violate the instructions of superior as he had already appointed Chandeshwar Rai in place of the petitioner.