DINBANDHU JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8262 of 1994, whereby the learned writ court upheld the order of dismissal dated 27.12.1993 passed by the Superintendent of Railway Police, Patna and the appellate order dated 25.8.1994 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railway), Patna and the reversion order dated 26.3.1991 passed by the Superintendent of Railway Police, Patna.

(2.) THE contention on behalf of the appellant is that pursuant to a departmental proceeding, the appellant has been found guilty and the order, which has been passed dismissing him from service was Dad as the same has actually not appraised the evidence adduced by him before the enquiring officer. It has been contended that the appellant who was a constable in the Bihar Police and was posted in Nalanda was sent for pension training in the year 1982 at the police headquarter, Patna and after completion of successful training, he was posted in the office of the Superintendent of Railway on 2.5.1985 and was also promoted to officiate in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Pension) at Patna.

(3.) HOWEVER , it appears that subsequently, the Sergeant Major made a complaint to the higher authority on 18.3.1991 that Sheo Mangal Bhagat had complained that the appellant had paid him, only Rs. 600/ - in cash and deposited Rs. 100/ - in a Bank Account in the name of Sheo Mangal Bhagat. The Sergeant Major further reported that an amount of Rs. 4000/ - was paid to said Shri Sheo Mangal Bhagat on 16.3.1991. The appellant vide order dated 23.3.1991 was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Further enquiry was conducted and by Annexure -3 to the writ application the petitioner -appellant was also reverted from the post of the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police to that of a constable as it was contended that the aforesaid promotion was a temporary promotion only for the purpose of discharging the work of disbursing the pension and in view of the fact that as the appellant was under suspension and not discharging the aforesaid duty, the said promotion was not required to be continued. After filing the show cause the departmental proceeding continued and the appellant adduced evidence both oral as well as documentary and finally the enquiry report was submitted in which the appellant was found guilty. The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal, as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ application. The appellant preferred an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed.