LAXMI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.12.1998( Annexure-5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, ( the Disciplinary Authority), whereby punishment of withholding of increment for two years equivalent to three black marks was imposed on the petitioner. He is further aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Director General-cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure-8), whereby in exercise of power under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Balia, Belon Police Station and was proceeded against departmentally vide Proceeding no. 39 of 1995 on the charge of converting a murder case in the U.D. cases, not preparing the inquest report properly, sending dead body for post mortem after much delay and wrongly releasing the accused Alimuddin after his arrest. The charge-sheet was issued on 1.6.1995 under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Katihar. The petitioner was given the list of witnesses and the list of documents which the department proposed to rely in support of the charge.

(3.) After conclusion of the inquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.2.1997 (Annexure-2) exonerating the petitioner from the charges and holding that the petitioner was not guilty. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, however, while recording the disagreement from the report of the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge vide his order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure-5) and imposed punishment of withholding of increments for two years equivalent to three black marks. While imposing the order of punishment, the disciplinary authority referring to the report of the Inquiry Officer, pointed out that the Inquiry officer did not take evidence of so many important witnesses and criticized him for writing in the report that some of the witnesses did not turn up in spite of notice. He further criticized the Inquiry Officer for having not recorded the statement of the crime reader. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar thus pointed out several faults in the inquiry and defects in the conduct of the Inquiry Officer and disagreeing with his report imposed the aforesaid punishment vide order dated 31.12.1998.