SHAILENDRA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order, as contained in Memo No. 2921 dated 05.11.2017 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of respondent no. 8, order contained in Memo No. 1919 dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of respondent no. 7 and also the order, as contained in Memo No. 522 dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure-10), issued under the signature of respondent no. 6, his appeal has been dismissed, whereby the petitioner has been suspended and two years of his increment has been seized and that no salary shall be given for the period of suspension, except subsistence allowance.

(3.) The facts of the present writ petition in a narrow compass is that the petitioner, being a Hawaldar of Bihar Police, was deputed at Tajpur Police Station in the District of Samastipur. On the fateful day of incident i.e. on 20.11.2017, the petitioner was on duty with the SHO of Police Station, Tajpur. All of a sudden, a public mob attacked on the police station, on the protest of murder of a person, by pelting stone, bricks etc. The petitioner and others have taken their position inside the premises with SHO and waiting for order of police officer. In the meantime, the deputed magistrate arrived at with the police force and went upon the roof of the police station and started firing with a view to control the situation. Due to firing one person sustained injuries and died. The officer incharge of the police station did not order to take steps against the trouble maker rather he said to stay within the premises for his protection and as such the petitioner along with four others were remained there. Thereafter, respondent no. 7, vide his order dated 05.11.2017, suspended the petitioner with effect from 02.11.2017 along with six others and directed to initiate a departmental proceeding and to frame charges against them. The petitioner filed his representation but without success. Respondent no.10 submitted his detailed enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty for the offence alleged against him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.6 praying therein that neither the respondent no. 8 nor the respondent no. 10 has considered his show cause explanation and passed an ex parte order erroneously without crossexamining him, which is not tenable in the eye of law.